Skip to main content

Jews tend to vote overwhelming for Democratic candidates.  In fact, 77% of Jews voted for John Kerry in 2004.  Since this is a website dedicated to electing Democrats, and Jews tend to work to elect Democrats, I figure there are several Jews lurking out there.  Just wanted to give you guys a quick welcome to Daily Kos, and explain to you and others how it feels to be a Jew who follows dKos closely.

This diary started as a comment I made last night. At one point yesterday I brought my wife over and looked at the most recent 50 diaries, there were 7 that were bashing Israel, and then there were 2 others that were talking about the Middle East war in more balanced terms.  

I wonder when are folks going to learn that Israel is like family to most Jews?  Now, people in our families may eff up, and we're not shy about smacking them around in private, but when we're in public nobody talks smack about our family and we'll stick up for them.  Plus, even if your brother/sister/cousin is wrong, nobody likes hearing about it constantly from everyone else.

There are many Jews here at dKos and the problem is that the recent anti-Israel diatribes are just making me sick, I don't know about anyone else.  I don't know if it's just "the right wingnuts reflexively support Israel; the wingnuts are by definition always wrong; thus we must reflexively oppose Israel" or what.  Why is it that there has to be a side that is wrong and a side that is right?  Why does there have to always be a side that's "more wrong?"  Why do people post body counts on both sides and say that Israel is more wrong than Hezbollah because more Lebanese civilians have died than Israeli civilians?  If an innocent civilian's life has infinite value, have not both sides lost infinitely?  

There have always been anti-Israel diaries but it's usually a couple per day if that and they're easy to ignore but now I find myself staying away from dKos for hours at a time (I know, I should get a life anyway) because I just don't want to get angry.

Today after seeing some comments that had great conspiracy theories about how Mossad faked the kidnappings of the soldiers just so they could bomb the snot out of Lebanon, I had to actually count the diaries.  If you read the last 300 diaries you could see...

EDIT 7:56pm EDT Sunday - the below list of diaries are those that I found that were strictly critical of Israel - and one sided in that respect. The range of the criticism varies widely. I am not trying to suggest in any way that the diaries below are identical in nature. The only commonality was when I read them, I read them as being critical of Israel the country, Israel's policies, Israel's behavior in the war, etc. I clarified this in the comments below but it was suggested that I really wasn't clear here.End edit


or recommended diaries such as Israel planned this war year(s) in advance and How Israel is committing war crimes, or diaries asking whether Is Israel just our puppet invading Lebanon because we told them to, or do the evil Jewish neo-con AIPAC folks control our foreign policy.  Bottom line - if you're Jewish and sensitive, there are plenty of diaries that you should avoid.

Then there are diaries that blame both Hezbollah and Israel and say we should just cut off financial support to both sides... um, like how much are we supporting Hezbollah now so who is really going to get cut here?  

If you dig far enough down though there are some reasonable diaries, diaries that honestly question both sides, or ask why can't we just all get along

And there are even Pro-Israel Diaries, and Diaries saying Democrats should support Israel - if you can find them.

So if you're counting (and I am) - in the last 300 diaries, there are 23 against Israel, 3 taking a middle position, and 2 pro-Israel.  So bottom line Jews - if you want to come to dKos you have to have a very very thick skin.

Jewish Democrats are just like gay Republicans.  Republicans love to have Gay folks' votes and support for all their right-wing policies, but when it comes to an issue near and dear to the hearts of many gays - the right to be treated as equals with the rest of society - the Republicans tell gays to kiss off and try to add hate to the constitution.  I believe that Democrats appreciate Jewish support for Unions, women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, the environment, and just about every other issue important to Democrats.  Jews are often at the forefront of fights to maintain separation of church and state, which helps try to stave off the religiofascists that are trying to take over. Senators Levin, Kohl, Feinstein, Boxer, Feingold, Wyden, and Schumer are reasonably well regarded (but please forgive us for Senators Specter and Coleman).  (I didn't mention Lieberman... He's a disgrace and I apologize on his behalf since he's not man enough to do it himself).

Every day or so, there's another diary that translates somehow to AIPAC is evil (sometimes they even have "An Agenda."  Name me one PAC that does not have "an Agenda," and I'll show you a worthless PAC).  AIPAC of course supports the neo-cons (actually, AIPAC supports Israel and the two are not necessarily related).  Just because some neocons are Jewish it's not really fair to say that the Jews got us into this war (in Iraq) and could easily get us out (I'm speaking to you Rep. Jim Moran D-VA).  Just because Clarence Thomas is black doesn't mean all blacks are against civil rights or freedom.  Please don't lump us all in with the Wolfowitz's and Abramoffs of the world.

Yes, it is ok for other people to criticize Israel (just wish ya'll would ease up a bit) and no, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-Semitic.  However, much criticism does slip into "Jews are to blame" which is anti-Semitic, and even that criticism that is non-bigoted still hurts.  Personally.  Israel is not an apartheid state, no matter how many times you claim it is - because under Apartheid the black Africans had almost no rights, whereas in Israel Arab citizens do vote and elect many members to parliament each election.  If you want to have a real deep debate, we certainly could get into whether or not a country should exist to protect (in essence) a certain favored religion.  Clearly official state religions aren't an issue, just go to the Vatican, or Scandinavia, or any one of the Arab countries except Turkey.  Should Israel have the right to exist as "a Jewish state?"  Tough one - I admit - but in 1948 the world decided that the Jews deserved a state in no small part because of the holocaust.  Saying that Israel should open up its borders and allow all Arabs to "return" and become yet another Jewish-minority country sometimes sounds like "the holocaust was 60-freaking years ago.  Get over it already."  It's not so easy to get over.

Does that mean that Israel is always right, mostly right, or even only sometimes right?  No.  All I'm trying to say is that to many (most) Jews, Israel is like family, and having your family get beaten up makes you angry.  Angry enough to vote Republican?  Well, 23% of Jews already do vote Republican, and then there is the Joe Lieberman wing of the party.

I don't know who is still reading this diary, but if you are, this is all that I would ask of you going forward:

Try to understand both sides.  Try to put yourselves in their shoes.  Did you know that Israel traded over 400 prisoners for 3 dead bodies of soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah several years ago - soldiers that were kidnapped while UN "peacekeepers" sat by and videotaped it rather than intervene.  Did you know that culturally, Israel's position is that they will leave nobody behind - every Israel's life is of infinite value - because as soon as they say that it's not worth fighting for one person, that can easily slippery slope into 2, 5, 10, 100, or millions and who will stop the next Holcaust?  Try to understand why the Palestinians support Hamas, that while they commit some atrocious attacks, they also have a very strong humanitarian bent and have literally been the main source of food, water, etc. at times?  Try to understand Hezbollah and the situation in Lebanon and how convoluted the Lebanese constitution is with allocation of power to various religions and how Syria and Iran call many of the shots.  Try not to be closed-minded - on either side.  And take these words of Rabbi Michael Lerner to heart:

   Who are Israel's friends and the friends of the Jewish people? Those who support this path toward peace and reconciliation. Who are its enemies? Those who encourage it to persist in the fantasy that it can "win" militarily or politically. Just as the objective enemies of America in the 1960s were those who egged it on to persist in the Vietnam war, and those who were its objective friends were those of its citizens who actively opposed that war, so similarly today the friends of the Jewish people are those who are doing everything possible to restrain it from cheerleadng for Israel's militarist adventures and refusal to treat the Palestinians as equally entitled to freedom and self-determination as the Jewish people.

    Who are Palestine's friends? Those who encourage a path of non-violence and abandoning the fantasy that armed struggle combined with political isolation of Israel will lead to a good outcome for Palestinians. Who are its enemies? Those who preach ideas like "one state solution" or global economic boycott without offering the Jewish people a secure state in Palestine--paths that will never produce anything positive but continued resistance by Israel and world Jewry.

    As for us in the Tikkun Community who are friends of both sides, our orientation is clear. Our goal is to speak truth to both the powerful in Israel and the powerless in Palestine, to tell them that their goals cannot be achieved without a radical reversal in the strategic directions they have been following. This truth will eventually be heard--the only question is whether it will be heard without another generation of Arabs and Israelis losing their lives. Because we care very much about the human suffering on both sides, we pray that this truth will be heard, and our strateges for a solution will be implemented. And we will do more than pray--we will also demonstrate against the governments of the U.S., Israel and Palestine till they all change their directions in the ways suggested here, we will organize and educate, and will take other non-violent stepts to get our message heard.

Originally posted to FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:07 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips or Troll ratings - I can take either (167+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saranwarp, claude, Marek, dajafi, ajsnow, LarryInNYC, Scipio, Bailey, lesley, Upper West, Radiowalla, hester, Paul in Berkeley, ferg, jah4168, Killer, lemon999, israelfox87, cecil vortex, Delaware Dem, jeebie, Mullibok, ScientistMom in NY, richter, juls, RunawayRose, bosdcla14, Elizabeth D, fugitive, Pyewacket, strandedlad, Beet, xynz, PhillyGal, IreneNC, Rat, recentdemocrat, theran, Meandering Fox, Matilda, grndrush, TrueBlueDem, BartBoris, bronte17, dianem, cardinal, rktect, anotherCt Dem, nyceve, DAVE DIAL, The 1n Only Leoni, maxgray7, Bardy, Akapl, weirdscenes, Proud SW FL Lib, kgerber, LeftofArizona, peeder, mississippi scott, neoeconomist, swillesque, michael1104, eps, sidnora, CydeWeys, stacystace, ktakki, Getreal1246, fightorleave, draftchrisheinz, Chicago Lulu, StuartZ, ghostofaflea, TiaRachel, Caldonia, chantedor, Catte Nappe, joejoe, dufffbeer, DH from MD, Democratic Hawk, Lions Den, parkslopper50, VerbalMedia, DemDog, nycdemocrat, AaronBa, boran2, Timroff, dcg2, marci in ca, Harkov311, DianeNYS, Green Zombie, denise b, ichibon, Elise, bee, Eric864, LisaZ, The Exalted, PBen, darwinsjoke, Jersey Girl, The Mack, zbctj52, kaye, david78209, anonymousredvest18, kldave, Arken, cris0000, the chuck, Karmafish, jmonch, QuickSilver, another American, Ubanks, paddykraska, wiscmass, serrano, LithiumCola, Rogneid, Shiborg, Jimbob, JanL, empathy, soyinkafan, oldskooldem, pico, danmac, Do Tell, Keone Michaels, quotemstr, Kimball Cross, rsquire, Doughnutman, isis2, sjw2103, nonnie9999, Joe F, LibChicAZ, bunk, american pastoral, apocryphal rumor, Mia Dolan, Democritus, kidneystones, Nulwee, BlueBiker, GoldnI, Monique Radevu, Red Sox, bsci, dpinzow, Susan Something, JESchwartz, arodb, Opinionated Ed, adamschloss, gen1776, Norm DePlume, Matthew 24 7, sfRenter, DragonPup, Ronmaven

    I just had to get that off my chest.  I love this site.  I hate it when coming here I get angry at fellow Kossacks when I feel we should be channeling this at, for example, the Bush administration and how Bush's horrible leadership has totally effed things up in the middle east...

    -Fred

    Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
    -3.13 -6.05

    by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:04:27 PM PDT

    •  my diary specifically criticizes the policy (19+ / 0-)

      Invading or blowing up a country does not stop terrorism
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  not an apartheid state (21+ / 0-)

      Fred, I was intruiged by your claim that Israel is not an apartheid state, for while I've always had mixed feelings about this latest affair in Lebanon (my own diary on the matter was completely "neutral"), I'd always been convinced that it was. Your justification:

      because under Apartheid the black Africans had almost no rights, whereas in Israel Arab citizens do vote and elect many members to parliament each election.

      Being a member of parliament is generally valuable to the extent that one can cast a decisive vote on an important issue. I've been under the impression from a few knowledgeable watchers of international elections that the Jewish parties never in fact associate themselves in coalitions with the Arab parties. For example in the last election, one observer remarked that it was important that the government had a 'Zionist' majority, not just a majority in parliament, because Jewish parties are unwilling to form coalitions with Arab parties to form a government. If this is true, it would seemingly negate your point, would it not?

      Secondly, while the Palestinian 'government' administers much of the West Bank and Gaza, no serious observer would consider it a sovereign government. The territories are still a part of Israel, and the regime imposed upon them is completely analogous to an apartheid regime, is it not?

      •  Dems are the minority in congress... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bosdcla14, anonymousredvest18

        and look what that gets us. Arabs will always be the minorities in Israel, they don't even have the potiential to ever lead the policies.

        It's now a "We're all Israelis" moment. Mehlman "In my interpretation, the war on terror is a false metaphor - the opposite of a fertile fallacy." Soros

        by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:36:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  interesting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fightorleave

            you seem to go along with Pat Buchanan.  He said today on the Mclaughlin Group that birth rates would be the "solution".  hmm, solution, i think i heard someone use that term in a compound way about 50 years ago....................yeah, that is it, "the final solution"

            •  Qalqilya Concentration Camp (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tamandua, Ptah the Great, lemming22
              Qalqilya (pop 70,000) is surronded by a 26 foot hi cement wall with guard towers every few hundred meters.

              from the same article where you quote rabbi lerner:

              http://www.zmag.org/...

              As the Tikkun Community has outlined in the past, the terms of that settlement should include:

              1.    Permanent boundaries for both states that roughly resemble the pre-67 borders, with some border adjustments mutually agreed to along lines developed in the Geneva Accord (Israel incorporating some of the border settlements into Israel, in exchange for Israel giving equal amounts and quality of land to the Palestinian State).

              2.    Sharing of Jerusalem and its holy sites, with each side entitled to establish their national capital in Jerusalem, Israel to have control over the Jewish and Armenian quarters plus the Wall and adjacent territory, and Palestine to have control over the Temple Mount with its mosques.

              3.    All states participating in the International Conference would dedicate at least .1% of their GDP toward an international fund for reparations for Palestinians who lost property, employment or homes in the period 1947-1967, and to Jews who fled from Arab states in the same period (however, reparations will not be paid to any Arab or Jewish family with current gross assets of more than $5 million dollars).

              4.    A joint Israel/Palestine/International Community police force will be set up to enforce border security for both sides. The U.S. and Nato will enter into a mutual security pact for both parties guaranteeing that each side will be protected by the U.S. and Nato from any assault by the other or by any assault from any other country in the world.

              5.    Creation of an Atonement and Reconciliation Commission which will unveil all records of both sides, bring to light all violations of human rights on both sides, bring formal charges against those who do not confess their involvement in those violations and testify to the details, and supervise a newly created peace curriculum for all schools and universities aimed at teaching reconciliation and non-violence in action and communication. The explicit goal of this Commission will be to foster the conditions for a reconciliation of the heart and a new understanding on the part of both peoples that each side has been cruel and insensitive, and need to repent, and that both sides have a legitimate natrrative that needs to be understood and accepted as a legitimate viewpoint by the other side.

              You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

              by Peter Pan on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:23:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Birth rates won't be a solution ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... they'll be the cause of more conflict.

              Within six years, however, Israel is going to have some very tough choices to make.  It's currently a Jewish-majority democracy which occupies various mostly-Muslim regions.  It's going to have to decide which of those parts it wants, and which it's willing to sacrifice.

        •  Except that if Israel annexed the West Bank, (13+ / 0-)

          Gaza, and Golan Heights, and extended full citizenship rights to all occupants of those currently occupied and/or settled territories, then Palestinians would make up something like 40-45% of the electorate today, with probable population increase to come in the future.  If all of those Palestinians were allowed to vote in Israeli elections, and were allowed to join in coalitions with Marxist, anti-Zionist, and certain other Israeli parties, the electoral outcome would look WAY different than it does today.  

          When people accuse Israel of being an apartheid state, this is what they mean -- the exclusion of occupied Palestinian populations from citizenship rights due to occupancy of a certain territory is closely (although admittedly not perfectly: some of the non-sovereign South African territories possessed more sovereignty than the PA currently does) parallel to the system of Bantustans enacted by apartheid South Africa.

          As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

          by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:49:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would say....fish or cut bait. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            It's now a "We're all Israelis" moment. Mehlman "In my interpretation, the war on terror is a false metaphor - the opposite of a fertile fallacy." Soros

            by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:50:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When you want to win the trust of a feral cat... (0+ / 0-)

              You avoid putting yourself into a situation where the cat is going to scratch you.  Play the numbers.  Keep the initial contact short and slowly increase it over a month or so.

              The funny thing is, it doesn't really matter if you hit the cat or not when it sinks its teeth into your arm.  A couple of people I know smack the little fuckers with rolled up newspapers when they are aggressive toward people.  Personally, I use cold water.

              What really matters are three simple things:

              • Time interval from problematic action to punishment.  You have about 10 seconds to punish the cat after it sins.  If it's longer than that, it's not effective.

              • Unconditional forgiveness.  After punishing a cat, immediately forgive it in all aspects.  Pretend the problem never happened.

              • Catnip.  Lots of it.

              A feral cat that I have been working with for about a year was just adopted by a couple down the street (who probably thought she was an abandoned housecat-- that's my goal).  My job is to dictate the social contract:  "it's OK to beg, whine, cheat, steal, sneak, scheme, and deceive, but it's not OK to bite, scratch, or otherwise be violent with a human".

              If they don't understand the terms early on, they'll never stand a chance of suckering anyone into adopting them.

              •  I use water to reinforce 'no'. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rusty Pipes, Ptah the Great

                I tap them on the nose quickly just like their mothers.

                But when working with shelter cats, at some point you place yourself within their strike zone. At that point I cry out and quickly if I can, I wipe a bit of blood on their nose (using a feather...), and make a sound that sounds something like a kitten. There are so many ways to break through....depending on the cat. Sometimes play, talk, food, using a feather to pet from a distance, even a feather on a very long stick. I have socialize cats that had been at a shelter for 6-8 years, that no one could get close to....yes patience. There is not a cat out there that won't eventually respond. For some reason it's rewarding when you finally gain their trust.

                When you want to win the trust of a feral cat, you start by not hitting it when it scatches you.

                by mattes on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:07:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Yup (6+ / 0-)

            As I see it, Sharon understood this and that is why he left Gaza.  He saw the need for a two state solution.  Without it, there is no more Israel -- at least as a Jewish state.  

            When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

            by flo58 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:54:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's gotta be a 2-state solution (14+ / 0-)

              Trick is how to divvy up the water and how to divvy up the holy sites.  The rest of it is secondary.  The issues with the "swiss cheese" map from Camp David weren't the lack of contiguity as much as the lack of water, but it was easier to simplify and say it was contiguity.  The news coverage has to distill the issue down into a 60-second story, and it doesn't do either side justice.

              -Fred

              Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
              -3.13 -6.05

              by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:35:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One State (3+ / 0-)

                By a backdoor or frontdoor method.  One state is the only way to resolve all of these gordian knots.  Unless, of course, you have a big sword. But remember, Alexander died in the process of conquering Asia.  The bold action is not militarism, but a one-state solution.

                PS - Turkey is not Arab - Muslim, yes - Arab, no.

                •  One state as a proposal means no peace. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Harkov311, Jimbob

                  If you think it can be imposed on Israel (possibly, it would have to be imposed on the Palestinians, as well), then go for it, I'll support those who want two states for two peoples.  My guess is that, to the extent a one state "solution" is in prospect, the status quo of Israel plus no Palestinian state will continue.

                  If you love the Palestinians more than you hate the Jews or Israelis, I respectfully suggest you, too, should support a two-state peace treaty as the most effective way to enable Palestinian national self-determination and the creation of a vibrant, progressive Palestinian society.  Or, you can let your conception of the (unrealizable) ideal be the enemy of the (realizable) good.

                  •  So (4+ / 0-)

                    People who support a one-state solution hate Jews?

                    If you love the Palestinians more than you hate the Jews or Israelis, I respectfully suggest you, too, should support a two-state peace treaty as the most effective way to enable Palestinian national self-determination and the creation of a vibrant, progressive Palestinian society.

                    This is just the kind of stuff that poisons any attempts at dialogue.  And we're talking dialogue among people who have a reasonably good chance of doing so.

                    Let's look at other possibilities - -
                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    a. More of the status quo.  Few - Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese - see this as anything but enduring a nightmare.

                    b. Eretz Yisroel would, by definition, create a Jewish minority state which would require an apartheid system to maintain its "Jewishness".  Few people in Israel support this and the world would not tolerate it.  The bloodshed would be unimaginable.

                    c. A two-state solution has been the vector of much recent diplomacy.  The result would produce two very unbalanced entities - a powerful Israel and a powerless Palestine.  It is inreality a bantustan solution condemned to failure.  Unless "appropriate" leaders are elected in Palestine, they are removed.  Those leaders who are acceptable to Israel are seen as Quislings by the Palestinians.  And that's if water, transit, settlers, the wall, Jerusalem, etc., etc. can be resolved.  Right.

                    d. That leaves a one-state solution as the ONLY logical choice remaining.  It obviates all of the issues of the imbalanced two-state model.  But it does mean an end to zionism.  That's the crux. Is zionism worth an eternity of war?

                    And don't you EVER accuse me of hating Jews or Muslims or Puerto Ricans or Cambodians!

                    •  My apologies, I should have written 'one.' nt (0+ / 0-)
                      •  And You Wonder (4+ / 0-)

                        As does the diarist, why so many progressives get totally fed up with you and your ilk.

                        On this subject you are as intolerant as any Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.  You refuse to engage in intelligent discussion.  You smear those with whom you disagree in excrement.  You mock, you lash out, you belittle.  And then you wonder why everybody doesn't love you?

                        Hello???

                        I think exchanges like this prove my point that zionism has poisoned the Jewish political landscape.

                        •  This is how you respond to an apology? n/t (0+ / 0-)
                        •  you are a bad man (3+ / 1-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tikkun, FredFred, fightorleave
                          Hidden by:
                          mattes

                          You are the root cause of the War in Lebanon and you don't even realize it.  You sit here on your high horse with your great ideas and bash Israel.  My friend, it is people like you who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist who perpetuate this problem.  The Jewish people are never going to give up Israel.  The US is this close to becoming a facist christian state and many jews are comforted by the fact that they will always have Israel.  Many religions and ethnic groups control governments throughout the world.  Your focus on Israel as some evil zionist monster is alarming.  You obviously believe encouraging war is a good idea.  Otherwise, you would let this bullshit go and treat Israel as you would any other country.  You are about the least progressive person I have ever encountered.  You my friend are an anti-semite and a traitor.  Go spew this crap elsewhere.

                          Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                          by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:58:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  They will give up israel (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattes, anonymousredvest18

                            Unless you have a suggestion for what should be done with the burgeoning arab population of Israel, which is within a generation of outnumbering the Jewish citizens.

                            So, when there are more Arabs than Jews, it will be a choice between a representative democracy or the out-and-out apartheid of the Chosen Land.

                            I keep faith that they will relenquish the racist alternatives.

                            "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." - Arthur C. Clarke

                            by groovetronica on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:15:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your faith is misguided (0+ / 0-)

                            It is a Jewish state.  Deal with it!

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:24:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But what do you suggest? (5+ / 0-)

                            If arab population begins to outnumber Jews in Isreal?  I'm really interested in your response.

                          •  I suggest (0+ / 0-)

                            It is a jewish state.  They should move elsewhere if they don't like it.  OK?

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:56:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then apparently (7+ / 0-)

                            it isn't a democracy.

                            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

                            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:01:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            it's a jewish state that is run like a democracy.  It's not a monarchy or dictatorship.  It certainly is a jewish state where people vote on who will represent them in the government..Sounds pretty much like democracy in the US to me.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:36:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But if in 100 years (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18, naltikriti

                            the majority becomes non-Jewish, will it still be a Jewish state? Would the non-Jewish majority rule?

                            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

                            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:43:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  YES! (0+ / 0-)

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:49:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tikkun, mattes, anonymousredvest18

                            the point is, unfortunately, if the non-Jewish majority rules, then it isn't going to be a Jewish state anymore. Right?

                            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

                            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:53:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No (0+ / 0-)

                            How did the shiite majority fair in Iraq?  Look, there are lots of countries where the minority rule.  Even some democracies.  Even in the U.S. currently the repubs are clearly a minority of the gen pop.  Your point is wrong and I don't see this as being as inevitable as you do.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:05:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            the Shiite majority didn't rule in Iraq because it was ruled by a dictator. Yes, a majority of voters did vote Republican, thus the election of GW. This is democracy, it is majority rule by definition.

                            I know you think this is not relevant, because it isn't likely for a while. But it is a useful mental exercise IMO. It forces us to remember that having a defined ruling group is directly contrary to the principal of modern secular liberal democracy.

                            I'm not arguing against a two-state solution, one of which has a Jewish majority. I'm just saying Israel should be secular, so that if a non-Jewish majority eventually forms, it doesn't constitute an existential threat to the Jewish state.

                            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

                            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:12:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm just saying (0+ / 0-)

                            That will never happen.  Israel is not secular.  Why should it have to be?  I am not arguing for any solution.  I am simply stating that I think it's unfair for you and others to call on Israel to be secular.  Israel has done a pretty good job IMHO of creaing a functioning democracy in a region where none existed.  They are a staunch ally of the US.  There are plenty of other non-secular countries to worry about.  My fear is that you (or maybe not you but other people with similar opinions) hold these beliefs because Israel is a "Jewish" state.  Call me crazy but I think there may be just a few jew haters out there.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:20:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure (3+ / 0-)

                            but to be honest (and I may be naive) I'd expect them all to be Republican. Dems are the party of tolerance and of minorities, of the disadvantaged. I can't see racially intolerant people being Dems, as it would seem to contradict their beliefs.

                            The point is that if Israel isn't secular then it is either a democracy, and therefore subject to changes in its ethnic or religious majority, or it may have to become undemocratic in order to maintain it's status as a Jewish state.

                            Majorities change. In fifty years, America will have a non-white majority. Israel should make sure that she has a plan to handle this, and I personally hope this plan doesn't include fascism or ethnic cleansing.

                            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

                            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:29:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  against the jewish state (0+ / 0-)
                            against muslim states

                            against christian states

                            against satanic states

                            for democracy and tolerance

                            You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

                            by Peter Pan on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:28:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More of an 'ethnocracy' I'd say. (3+ / 0-)

                            As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

                            by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:19:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not okay. (6+ / 0-)

                            Or rather, your response is still unclear.

                            Scenario:
                            Arab population increases in Israel.  It begins to significantly change the demographics in Israel.
                            I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but do you support forcibly removing Arabs with Israeli citizenship from Israel in order to keep that Jewish majority?

                          •  Try again (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't care about your demographics.  There will always be a jewish government running Israel.  I guess in your scenario this makes for a lot of disenfranchised Arabs.  Once again, I suggest the logical answer to this problem is for these arabs to move to any number of countries where they can live under Arab rule.  Those countries don't care who they want to represent them either.

                            However, I don't understand why you are so anxious for your scenario to occur.  Sounds to me like you just don't like the idea of a jewish state.  

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:39:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sounds to me like you're a bigot. (5+ / 0-)

                            You know, I'd have more respect for you (not that you care as I'm sure you reply) if you just went on ahead and admit that you're racist.

                            I asked you that question out of curiosity and sincerity.  It's not my scenario and frankly, Israel is going to have to deal with this issue at some point.

                            It's obvious you're in favor of ethnic cleansing (and I'm thankful that most don't think as you do) so at least have the balls to come out and say it.

                          •  Oh, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18, naltikriti

                            Do you realize how much you sound like the Klan who tell black people to go back to Africa?

                          •  yep (0+ / 0-)

                            it's exactly the same.  Caught me!

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:01:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So come outta the closet why don't you? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18
                          •  Caught me (0+ / 0-)
                            I'm gay too!

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:10:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He is a bigot (2+ / 0-)

                            from his reply to one of my earlier posts:

                            See that post is exactly what I am talking about.  That is anti-Israel bullshit.  It has no basis in reality.  Someone from Hizbollah said it so it's true.  That is the type of crap that perpetuates this conflict.  The Arab terrorists need people to believe they are being oppressed.  Ohterwise, they have no leverage.  If the international community would just once say you got what you deserved.  Stop fucking with Israel and they won't blow you up.  But no, fucking Calital thinks Israel is a monster who blow up fucking hospitals for fun.  ARGH!

                            Apparently he advocates the murder of innocent civilians as long as their Arabs.

                          •  Clearly that is a bigoted statement (0+ / 0-)

                            and I was definately advocating murdering innocent civilians.  You are dead on too!

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:02:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  that's just bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            Calling me a racist is funny.  I am in favor of ethnic cleansing.  You caught me.  I usually post my racist rants at LGF but I thought I would just lurk here at Kos for a few years so when this war started I could call for ethnic cleansing.  

                            Your curiosity worries me.  Why do you care so much about an issue that is clearly not something on the table right now?  

                            Does it really make me a racist to want there to be one jewish country on the entire fucking planet?  You are right, I don't really care about the poor oppressed Israeli Arabs who may theoretically be the majority in Israel one day.  However, try to wrap your brain around the idea that the majority of the World's jewish population might someday end up in Israel because some crazed person or group has decided to start trying to exterminate them again.  That would certainly throw off your whole demographic argument.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:00:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BS? (2+ / 0-)

                            Your curiosity worries me.  Why do you care so much about an issue that is clearly not something on the table right now?

                            Because I tend to plan ahead.

                            Wanting a Jewish state doesn't make you a racist.  Wanting to remove Arabs by whatever means who are citizens of that Jewish state, makes you a racist. It's a dilemma that Israel's going to have to deal with at some point.

                            As to racist crazy groups:

                            Israel may have upwards of two hundred nukes, but it will only take 1 to wipe out Israel. One lucky shot. (And before your imagination takes hold, I do not advocate the destruction of Israel.)  This crazed person who possesses a nuke and wants to exterminate Jews is not going to give a damn about sacrificing the lives of millions to do this because well, they're crazy.

                            But I'm done.  If you can't see that what you're saying (and even advocating in some instances) is racist, then there's nothing else I can say.

                          •  My fear is that it is being considered... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            And that the constant hostility from Israel is an attempt to engineer the future, where antagonisms run so high that apartheid for 'security' reasons become quasi-legitimate responses.

                            It's about the only way that I can see Zionism maintaining the control it currently has in the location for that much longer.

                            "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." - Arthur C. Clarke

                            by groovetronica on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:46:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So who is the racist? n/t (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18, Sanuk, gen1776

                            When you want to win the trust of a feral cat, you start by not hitting it when it scatches you.

                            by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:14:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i guess i am (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            who knew?

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:57:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  groovetronica, (0+ / 0-)

                            we have a generation or more to deal with a presumed Arab majority.  Why not hold off on that subject.

                          •  Merciful Heavens! (7+ / 0-)

                            You do certainly go far to underscore the issues raised by the diarist.  Should I may a list of anti-zionist Jews or will a few suffice for now?

                            Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum - revered Hasidic leader
                            Noam Chomsky - a leader of the progressive left
                            Norman Finklestein - child of Holocaust survivors

                            Are these people Jewish enough?  They are/were strongly anti-zionist.  I would hope you wouldn't accuse them of being anti-semitic.

                            The problem - which the diarist seems to miss - is that the zionist experiment has twisted nearly every progressive movement in which Jews have historically been involved into a dangerous and inappropriate dichotomy - "Are you for or against Israel?"

                            Just as there have been difficulties merging the former DDR into a Germany, there will be difficulties creating a secular, democratic state in Israel/Palestine, but it is the only possiblity that will bring peace to the region.

                          •  You are funny (0+ / 0-)

                            This is not an anti-zionist statement you are making.  It is certainly not something Chomsky would support.  The ideas you expouse will continue to cause war it that region of the World.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:52:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and you are sick (0+ / 0-)

                            the only country that supports Israel totally is the US, yet you bash the US and call it a religios fascist state.  You are more the problem than you detractor, your hate goes off on everyone it seems.

                          •  and you can't read (0+ / 0-)

                            I am about as pro-US as is humanly possible.  I am doing everything in my power to keep this great country from becoming a facist state.  However, the writing is on the wall.  All I am saying is it could happen here.  If it does, I am comforted by the fact that Israel exists.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:54:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i well understand what you say (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mattes

                            you bash the left for not supporting Israel and you bash the right because you call them Christian facists.  Maybe you should get your tickets now.

                          •  I don't bash anyone (0+ / 0-)

                            Just cause I express concern doesn't mean I bash.  See, I understand what Daily Kos is all about.  It's about being able to say what you want without some idiot boiling it down to you are bashing people.  That is how people at conservative blogs win arguments.  Here, we try to use reason to make our arguments.

                            Thanks, but I am good where I am for now.  I am working hard however to help put the US back on the right course by helping the Dems to retake the majority in the House and/or Senate.

                            Finally, I have not and never will bash the left.  I am simply questioning why some people posting on this particular site are so anti-Israel.  I would really like to understand it better.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:14:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i don't need your advice (0+ / 0-)

                            on how to act at daily kos, but thank you very much.  i will say this, you will find few friends when you attack all in the US and then say you are the most pro American person around.  it is a question of credibility.

                          •  you do need my advise (0+ / 0-)

                            because you keep saying posting on a message board is attacking.  I am not looking to make friends.  I am looking to have an enlightened discussion and you are apparently not yet able to see the difference.  Just a quick look at your "activity" on Kos shows me that I am not the only one who thinks you need this lesson!

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:23:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you are a troll (0+ / 0-)

                            i have only had postivie ratings.  you attack both sides, no wonder you have no friends.  you would check my "activity" yet, you lie about it.

                          •  a troll? (0+ / 0-)

                            You have been posting on Kos for 2 weeks.  You don't even know what a troll is.  I am really not trying to be a dick.  I am simply saying that there is a different way to approach what you are trying to do here.  You don't need to accuse me of bashing and attacking to make a point.  I think you have some very valid points.  I just wish you would understand that your points get more respect if you post them in a respectful manner.  I just don't like getting called out by someone who has been postinng here for 2 weeks.  It's not the right way for you to act.  Find your place first, get to know the site then come out with guns blazing.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:32:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you (0+ / 0-)

                            lied when you said that people have been trying to stop my "activity".  How can I respect someone who says that?  You said that the left is anti israel and that the right is Christian facist, and you are glad you can always leave America for Israel.  Yet you also say you are the most pro American person out here.

                            Now you say I do not know a troll, and i should learn my place.  I beg to differ, i do know what a troll is and i am starting to think i am aguing with a crazy person.  For that reason i am going to end this conversation.  Also, if you think i just started reading this site two weeks ago.............hmm, oh well, forget it, no one wants to hear my bio, let's just drop this.  Good day sir.

                          •  I do not like that hat! (0+ / 0-)

                            I didn't say people have been trying to stop your activity.  What I said and I stand by is it doesn't look like people repect your activity.  I am simply trying to help sir.  You used the words bashing, attacking and troll in our supposedly civil conversation.  That's not cool and you miss my might when you characterize it so.  My point is I am glad Israel is there in case the worst happens.  I am not predicting it will happen.  In fact, I am hopeful it will not.  I am also not naive enough to believe it could not happen.  The fact that that I stated America is slipping towards a Chritian facist state is an opinion that I currently hold.  I am frightened by that possibility very much.  The wars, spying on citizens, suspending habeus corpus, signing statements, stem-cell debate, Blackwell in OH, and numerous other affronts to democracy make me concerned.  I do not hold the entire right responsible for this.  Nor do I accuse the entire left of being anti-Israel.  In fact, I think the majority of people on the left are pro-Israel.

                            Ok, good day and good luck.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:12:42 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Unfortunately, I'm out of bagels for today, but (0+ / 0-)

                            your accusation certainly deserves several.

                            As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

                            by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:17:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the root cause of war (0+ / 0-)
                            the root cause of war is greed for land.

                            nice piece of land is israel. they conquered it and their is no peace with out an admission.

                            the USA also is on conquered land. (Thus the alliance).

                            You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to prevent climate change.

                            by Peter Pan on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:34:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  A Zionist reality enables the Jewish political (0+ / 0-)

                          landscape on an international stage, essentially.

                          So, I'm not sure of your point; in these talks, we should be accepting of the reality that a Jewish state exists and should better integrate with neighoring territories . . . even if that's not been the case since 1948.

                          Jews have cultural and practical historical reasons for now having Israel as a formal homeland.  The growth of a movement towards a Jewish state/nation came from various sides - de facto immigration growth into the former Palestine, economic competition in the region being split across religious or heritage boundaries, rationale to bring a core identity and place to identify from the long period of Jewish diaspora, etc.  It just sucks that the region they were eventually granted to settle by Balfour and the UN intersects with the diverse interests of power-hungry, divisive factions without and within.  That's before we even talk about religion beyond superficial demographics, of course.

                          So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way.

                          by wader on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:55:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  An Eternity of War Is Preferable (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      jah4168, djpat

                      to the nightmare of eternal victimhood. There are no gentile nations which can be trusted to look to the welfare of Jews first. As much as you'd probably prefer not to consider history, Jews must consider both recent and distant history always.

                    •  However (0+ / 0-)

                      I think you neglect to note that A and C could both grow into D, given peace and time.  With enough peace and time, eventually the older generations will die out and the younger generations will be too busy with myspace to fight all that often.

                  •  Well Jimbob (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    anonymousredvest18, naltikriti

                    If it's such hogwash, then you should be easily able to dismantle the argument, point by point, using more than just one word.

                    Let's start with Jerusalem.

                    Two-state options - Israeli?  Internationalized?  Peacekeeping force?  Religious sites?  All of these remain bitterly contested.

                    One-state - Capital of Israel/Palestine.  Access to all.  Non-militarized.

                    Then there are the settlers.  They get to stay in a one-state solution.  No screaming children, no bulldozers.

                    A one-state solution obviates almost every issue that stands in the way of any two-state scenario.

              •  Water's not a problem. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                naltikriti

                Please see Liquid Assets:  An Economic Approach for Water Management and Conflic Resolution in the Middle East and Beyond (pdf) by

                 * Franklin M. Fisher, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
                 * Annette Huber-Lee, Tellus Institute
                 * Ilan Amir, Technion
                 * Shaul Arlosoroff, Mekorot (Israel National Water Corporation)
                 * Zvi Eckstein, Tel Aviv University
                 * Munther Haddadin, Jordanian Water Negotiator
                 * Salem G. Hamati, ROID Engineering, Amman
                 * Ammar Jarrar, Al-Najah National University
                 * Anan Jayyousi, Al-Najah National University
                 * Uri Shamir, Technion
                 * Hans Wesseling, Delft Hydraulics

                With a Special Contribution by:

                 * Amer Z. Salman, University of Jordan
                 * Emad K. Al-Karablieh, University of Jordan

                The "bottom line" is quite clear:

                Palestine: $0.60/cu.m.
                Approximate Cost of Pumping of Mountain Aquifer Water and Conveyance to Coast: $0.40/cu.m.
                Approximate Maximum Ownership Value of Mountain Aquifer Water: $0.20/cu.m. ($0.20 = $0.60 - $0.40)
                Approximate Upper Bound to Value of 100 MCM/yr. of Mountain Aquifer Water: $20 million/per yr.

                Looking at the north:

                For 2010, the estimated effect on Israel of a loss of the Banias or the Hasbani is only about $5 million per year in normal times and could only become as large as $75 million per year in times of extreme drought.

                While I make no political statement as to whether giving up such water would be an appropriate policy, it should be clear that this is not a matter for war nor one that should hold up an otherwise satisfactory peace treaty.

                The link above is to a Power Point presentation.  The book itself, published in September 2005, is available here which you can get to from the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

                Liquid Assets shows that the common view of water as an inevitable cause of future wars is neither rational nor necessary. Typically, two or more parties with claim to the same water sources are thought to play a zero-sum game with each side placing a high emotional and political value over the ownership of the water. However, Franklin Fisher and his coauthors demonstrate that when disputes in ownership are expressed as disputes about money values, in most cases, the benefits of ownership will be surprisingly small. By assigning an economic value to water and treating water as a tradable resource, parties see that the gains from cooperation exceed the costs resulting from the change in ownership. A zero-sum game becomes a win-win situation.

                To support this new approach, Liquid Assets presents an innovative water allocation model that can be used to assist water management, the cost-benefit analysis of water infrastructure, and the resolution of disputes. The model takes system-wide effects into account and is the first to overcome the failure of actual water markets to cope with the divergence between social and private benefits (as implied by agricultural subsidies), permitting the model-user to impose his or her own values or policies.

                Liquid Assetsapplies its methodology to Israel, Jordan, and Palestine, a region where water is scarce and water conflicts are often thought to be explosive. Indeed, this book is the result of a joint effort of Israeli, Jordanian, Palestinian, American, and Dutch experts. But the book’s message and methods are not restricted to the Middle East. They are applicable to water management and water disputes around the globe.

              •  Holy Places can be solved, too. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                The Mack, naltikriti

                Christian Quarter and Muslim Quarter to Palestine as part of (east) Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Palestine.

                Armenian Quarter and Jewish Quarter to Israel as part of (west) Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Israel.

                Temple Mount sovereignty to no one or joint ownership: Muslim/Palestinian control over the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.  Jewish/Israeli control over everything below the surface.

              •  Does anyone think (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18

                ...that there will ever be a two-state solution?  It will always be a temporary "solution".

                •  Yes, it's the only way to peace. The question (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tikkun, The Mack

                  is how much blood will be shed before the parties get there.  Appropriate models have long existed as bases for negotiation:  the Clinton Paramaters of December 2000, the People's Voice, the Geneva Initiative.

                  From what I know of Israeli public opinion, were there to be a cessation of violence and a Palestinian leadership that reaffirmed prior Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority agreements binding the Palestinians to a peaceful resolution and a two-state settlement, I am confident that a clear majority of the Israeli public would respond positively.

                  •  I don't think it will bring lasting peace (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    anonymousredvest18, naltikriti

                    if Israel is not secular. If Israel is a Jewish liberal democracy, and in 50 or 100 years there is a demographic shift leading to a non-Jewish majority, trouble would seem unavoidable. A two secular state solution would provide a de facto Jewish state for 50-100 years, and then it might peacefully become something else (majority rule). Hopefully by that time there is no need for a safehaven for the Jewish people. I think a single secular liberal democracy is preferable to two states which aren't secular, as I do believe these two peoples could live together.

                    You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

                    by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:09:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Two-state solution is dead (4+ / 0-)

                since Israel refused to accept the results of the Palestinian election.

                It'll be one state and one prison camp.

              •  interesting (0+ / 0-)

                that you dont' see Christians trying to claim Nazareth and Bethlehem.  The point is, religions can get along, they dont' always have to "take over" places to be happy.  Also, if you check a map you will see Muslim nations surounding the Palestinian territories.  Funny how they do not give any of their land to these downtrodden masses that they support so fully.

                •  How so? There are hundreds of thousands (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  anonymousredvest18

                  Palestinians in the Middle East diaspora.  Their citizenship rights are certainly mixed, but they have land ownership rights in every single surrounding country, with the possible exception of Lebanon.

                  As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

                  by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:24:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  And what's especially meaningful (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mattes, anonymousredvest18, flo58, gkn

            about that number is that if Palestinians are 40-45% of the population, the Jewish population is only 55-60% of the population, or barely a majority. And the Palestinian birthrate is much higher than the Jewish birthrate.

            Thus the need for a unilaterally imposed solution by 2010 or so, to maintain the possibility of having a democratically governed, Jewish state.

            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:02:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Israel already annexed the Golan (10+ / 0-)

            That's why you rarely hear it discussed, and why there's no way Syria is getting it back.  The dams around the Sea of Galilee were constantly subject to artillery barrage by Syrians holding the high ground.  All Arab residents of the Golan were offered citizenship when it was annexed.

            West Bank & Gaza are a different story.  The inhabitants are in limbo.  Not taken in by neighboring governments (too useful to keep them as refugees), not granted full citizenship rights by the Israelis, treated as pawns by Arafat, the people in those areas have suffered mightily.  Most people recognize that.  But their suffering is complex - it is not simply "Israel's fault."  There is plenty of blame to be laid around.  The issue is complex - if it were simple it would have been resolved already.

            -Fred

            Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
            -3.13 -6.05

            by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:33:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  One pedantic point, though. (0+ / 0-)

              West Bank & Gaza are a different story.  The inhabitants are in limbo.  Not taken in by neighboring governments (too useful to keep them as refugees),

              I know that all Palestinians resident in today's Jordan have full Jordanian citizenship rights, and I know several Palestinians resident in the West Bank who have Jordanian citizenship.  Did those Palestinians gain Jordanian citizenship during the period that Jordan had sovereignty over the West Bank (1948-1967), or did they gain citizenship after 1967?  In either case, it's at least one solid example to counter the idea that Palestinians are only refugees due to the policy desires of various Arab governments.  

              As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

              by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:41:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I *think* (0+ / 0-)

                it was after. In fact, I think it was after the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaties--in other words, after King Hussein got tired of being manipulated by the rest of the Arab states. But I'm not 100% sure of that.

                "Don't call yourself religious, not with that blood on your hands"--Little Steven Van Zandt

                by ChurchofBruce on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:30:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Since Jordan is already (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jah4168, FredFred

                  about 70% Palestinian, that would make sense.  I guess it doesn't qualify as a Palestinian state though.  The leadership is not Palestinian, but a monarchy established by the British.

                  All the time that Jordan controlled the west bank, there was no call for a Palestinian Homeland.  It was only after the Syrian/Jordanian/Egyptian block realized that they weren't going to get the land back by military force, that the plight of the refugees even entered their minds, and only then a a different kind of pawn.

                  •  Well, perhaps according to the governments, (0+ / 0-)

                    but according to the people, a form of Palestinian nationalism was already starting when they started seeing the writing on the wall ca. 1920.

                    As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

                    by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:13:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Fault is an over-rated concept (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              At bottom, what does it matter whose fault it is?  The situation persists and needs to be at the top of the agenda when it comes to fixing matters in the Middle East, rather than a footnote.  

              While we argue about who is to blame, we do nothing to alleviate the burdens that have been placed on the many innocent people living in what will one day be know as Palestine.

              When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

              by flo58 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:53:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Golan Heights, too, will have to go back. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              curmudgiana

              The problem in negotiations with Assad's father is that Israel wanted to withdraw to the international border whereas Assad pere wanted to return to the pre-Six-Day War situation, under which Syria held territory in Israel beyond its border that was occupied during Israel's War of Independence.

              •  Who will make them give it back? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18, sofia
                •  No outside party will make them, but (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jah4168, The Mack

                  a Syria credibly committed to real and full peace, and willing to accept the same international border that Egypt rightly insisted on from Israel, will lead to a peace treaty with that result.  Clinton and Barak almost got there, but Bashar's father balked.

                  •  Syria has made many overtures to negotiate (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mattes, anonymousredvest18, sofia

                    this peace, and Israel sticks a banana in its ear.

                  •  According to President Clinton.. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Noah in NY, curmudgiana

                    ..it was Barak who balked.

                    In his book..., Clinton blamed the collapse of later talks between Syria and Israel on then-Prime Minister Barak.

                    The talks, which were revived in December 1999, continued for several months. They included a three-way "summit" between Clinton, Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara at Shepherdstown, West Virginia.

                    But those talks collapsed, Clinton said in his book, because Barak got "cold feet" and was more concerned about public opinion polls back home.

                    link

                    •  And now more bananas (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sofia

                      Syria wants to have its say, but US is determined not to listen
                      By Michael Binyon and Tim Reid

                      WHEN Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, meets European and Arab foreign ministers in Rome on Wednesday, one key minister from the region will be missing.
                      Syria, the main Arab backer of Hezbollah, has not been invited to the emergency talks, but yesterday it made clear that it has plenty to say — and wants a role in any plan to end the fighting.

                      “Syria is ready for dialogue with the US based on respect and mutual interests,” Faisal al-Meqdad, an influential Deputy Foreign Minister, said in an interview yesterday.

                      He offered to “facilitate communication” with Hezbollah, but insisted that Damascus could not speak for the militant group which, he said, made its own decisions.

                      His offer was swiftly rebuffed by John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, who said it was “hard to see” benefits from a Syria-US dialogue. In his weekend radio address President Bush specifically named Syria and Iran as the two main backers of Hezbollah terrorists who, he said, were responsible for the crisis.

                      ...

                      Syria clearly sees an opportunity in the crisis. It has linked its offer to help with a demand for a settlement that would see Israel releasing prisoners and withdrawing from Shebaa Farms, an area on the Lebanese border that Lebanon claims as its territory.

                      Damascus, though, has two longer-term aims: an end to Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, territory captured from Syria in 1967, and a tacit agreement that the US and the West will end their confrontation with President Bashar al-Assad’s government over its alleged involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister.

                      Damascus cannot seriously expect any promise by the US or UN to draw a line under the Hariri affair, which has come close to destabilising the Assad Government; but it clearly hopes that pressure on Damascus from the West and from fellow Arab governments will be lifted if it can deliver a ceasefire by Hezbollah.

                      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

            •  The hell it's not somebody's fault! (3+ / 0-)

              You yourself admit that Israel took the West Bank & Gaza by force and then they refuse to give the people who live there the basic civil rights associated with citizenship such as the right to vote, ect. ect.  What Israel is doing to the Palestinian people is no different than what southern states did to black people under jim crow, and what South Africa did under apartheid.  So you are absolutely wrong!  Israel is to blame for the suffering of the Palestinian people.  However, with that said, the killing of innocent Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist is also not justified, and it doesn't help the Palestinian cause.  What they need is to participate solely in non-violent forms of civil disobedience against the state of Israel just like Martin Luther King, Jr. did during the Civil Rights movement.  Only then will Americans see the plight of the Palestinian people and begin to put pressure on the Israeli govenment to recognize Palestinians as having full rights to citizenship.

              •  Interesting rewriting of history (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dianem, The Mack, gen1776

                I would like to see the textbook that contains that version of history.  Was it an Israeli war of agression that ended up with them occupying the West Bank and Gaza?  Didn't think so.  Occupying land so that an invasion into your country cannot occur from those places again is a lot different then what you are describing.  Face facts, the rest of the Arab world has allowed the Palestinian people to suffer to make hay with people like you who buy into the oppressed palestinians bullshit.  

                Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:08:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  consider these facts. (3+ / 0-)

                  At the time of the partition Jews had somewhere between 7-10 percent of the land, were 1/3 of the population, and got over 50 percent of the land.(keep in mind that they got the land they got with the help of the British).  The Israeli's were also made the ruling the body of the state.  No self respecting people would have accepted this condition.

                  In 67, the arabs were still rightfully mad as whell about the what was a european colony in palestine.  colonialism almost always leads to resistance from the natives.  
                  I don't believe Israel has the right to occupy gaza/west bank because the natives resisted the western colonialism. While security might be part of the reason for occupation, I think most reasonable people see it is not all of it. As a progressive I feel strongly that civilians who flee during a time of conflict should be allowed to return after hostilities cease.  I find it a dissapointing that so many liberals think it is okay to punish civilians in this and other manners.

                  •  more made up history (0+ / 0-)

                    Those numbers are bunk and you know it.  The jews got Israel because it was the only place in the world that really sucked.  They certainly didn't stick the jews in Europe.  The partition is baloney.  I understand why the arabs would be unhappy to have a jewish state plunked down right in the middle of the Middle East.  I am not even sure I blame then for being upset.  But, casting the palestinians in this role of victim to bolster the Arab position is pure bunk and I am still stunned that so many people cite to it as fact.

                    Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                    by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:48:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •   wasteland before the europeans enlightened them? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      anonymousredvest18, gkn, naltikriti

                      The facts are that it was populated by arabs before European colonialists came and decided they would take over the land. Period.
                      The Israeli's did not get the land because it sucked. They got it because they really really really wanted that land because it was there "ancestral" homeland, and the west wanted a base of influence in that world. The land was home to arabs before colonialists came. Just like africans resisted colonliasm, so did the arabs.  

                      To call the land a wasteland before it was Israel is an extremely ethnocentric viewpoint.  They did not have a western style state, or cities, or infrastructure, or culture.  But that does not make it a wasteland. We should not look down upon socities who either were incapable or chose not to be as advanced as the west.

                      •  I didn't say wasteland (0+ / 0-)

                        They got it because they really really really wanted that land because it was there "ancestral" homeland, and the west wanted a base of influence in that world.

                        And maybe that was okay because 6,000,000 jews had just been fucking killed for being jewish.

                        Look, all I am saying is they didn't give them Paris or Rome.  They gave them a barren desert where very few people lived.

                        Your response does nothing to disprove my overall point which is that your numbers are bunk and you cite them as fact.

                        Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                        by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:09:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  i disagree that it was a wastleland. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          anonymousredvest18

                          .  Of course there are varying estimates, but everyone agrees that the Israeli's got FAR FAR FAR FAR more of territory with the partition then they already had(and some of the land they got they stole in conjuction with the Turks/British). If you want to get into a flame war about whether it was 5, 7, 9, 3, percent, then fine, but it will be a complete waste of time.  

                          as for it being a wasteland, here is why I disagree.
                          Britain's high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said 'all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators'...The Colonial Office rejected the recommendation." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

                          •  not looking for a flame war (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree with some of your points.  I think it was bad that the people you site to got displaced.  I just think you overstate your facts to support your conclusions.  I also think that you leave out a lot of facts that don't support your conclusion.  That is not a flame war.  A flame war is more you suck no you suck.  That is a far cry from what you and I posted.  I respect your position and would be willing to have an honest debate about it.

                            However, I don't think it will go far in solving the current siuation in Lebanon.  The people of Iran and to some extent Syria who are behinf Hezbollah are not up in arms because a few farmers got displaced.  They are up in arms because Israel threatens their power base.  I don't have any good ideas how to fix that situation.  But, I do know that denying Israel's place in the World today as a sovereign nation is not going to make things better.

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:46:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            by wasteland. I should not have jumped to that conclusion, I should have first asked  what you meant by it.

                            On a side note, we are both united in defeating Rick, I live in PA and am canvassing this summer for a group that will help the fight against him.  But that is a topic for another discussion.

                          •  cool (0+ / 0-)

                            f rick!  PEACE...

                            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:04:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Um, (0+ / 0-)

                        I hope you just misspoke, omachoomar, or that I'm misunderstanding:

                        They did not have a western style state, or cities, or infrastructure, or culture.

                        We should not look down upon socities who either were incapable or chose not to be as advanced as the west.

                        I do hope you are not suggesting that Arabs had/have no culture.  Nor that different societies don't have a right to define "advanced" in different ways.

                        One oft-sited example is that many peoples are aghast when they learn that our "advanced" societies put old people in institutions.  They see that as decidedly uncultured.

                  •  n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    "No self respecting people would have accepted this condition."

                    Hard to read that one in a way that's not, well, let's just say not primarily focused on the actions of the Israeli government.

                    -Cecil

                    "I'm not the only one with super powers at the bank."

                    by cecil vortex on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:52:36 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  what on earth are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

          you complain that Muslims can not take over in Israel?  come on guy, read a history book.  The fact is that over 1 million Muslims, all Israeli citizens, voted in the last election.  they were not shot at our diebolded away.  

          Do you even know what Israel means?  Jews have been hounded and persecuted for a couple thousand years.  They are not wanted in Europe and not wanted in the Middle East.  Yet you complain that Muslims can not take over Israel?  Come on, give them a little bit of a break.

      •  This is my understanding, too: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18, curmudgiana

        I've been under the impression from a few knowledgeable watchers of international elections that the Jewish parties never in fact associate themselves in coalitions with the Arab parties. For example in the last election, one observer remarked that it was important that the government had a 'Zionist' majority, not just a majority in parliament, because Jewish parties are unwilling to form coalitions with Arab parties to form a government. If this is true, it would seemingly negate your point, would it not?

        I have to strain to think of any way Israel isn't an apartheid state. The United Nations was right; Zionism is racism.

        •  Chickenshit bullshit. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueDem
          •  That was an incisive fucking reply. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            Let me tell you something that is chickenshit: targeting civilians. And yes, that is exactly what Israel has done in Lebanon. If you think Zionism isn't racism, I'm sure you see a lot of bullshit in places where it doesn't exist.

            •  except he's right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gen1776

              You are spouting bullshit.  You are changing history and turning the Pallestinians into something they are not.  People like you allow the Middle East to fester.  Not Israel.  You see if you didn't buy into the anti-Israel crap the Arab nations would be forced to negotiate in good faith.  But as long as people support the notions you expouse then there will always be war.  Blame yourself!

              Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

              by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:11:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I blame the people and their weapons who have (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18

                used a kidnapping as a pretext to invade a sovereign nation at great cost to life and property. People like you who spout "Israel right or wrong" pretty well have ensured the violence will continue.

                •  I don't spout.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radiowalla, cecil vortex

                  Israel right or wrong.  Never have.  I would point out that the kidnapping as you call it was not a pretext.  The violence will continue only as long as people begrudge Israel the right to exist.  I can guarantee you that Israel will never at no time ever invade any of it's neighbors without first being actually attacked.  So, if you can figure out a way to stop the attacks on Israel that should pretty much accomplish your goal of stopping the violence.  If you don't believe me, ask Egypt how likely Israel is to invade.  

                  Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                  by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:53:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  uh (11+ / 0-)
          Zionism is racism

          if wanting a home country for a historically oppressed ethnic group is racism, then there are a fuck of a lot of racist countries out there. and not just in the middle east, either.

          try moving every say, arab you can find into ireland and see how the irish react to the idea of seeing a majority of the population be non-irish.

          it's easy to be an american. contrary to what bush and his crew makes it out, we're not surrounded by large populations who wish us destroyed. israel is charged with the almost insurmountable task of being a homeland for a small minority of people who, in the last century, were not only very close to being wiped off the face of the earth, but still have to deal with people who want to finish the job. that means that most anything the country does is done under the subtext of survival of the jewish people, which of course will be viewed as 'racist' or assholish by people who haven't the slightest idea knowing what it's like to see your 5000-year old culture threatened with extinction.

          i don't support israel because my GF is israeli, or because of the fight her family put up in WWII, in the camps, in founding the country. i support israel's right to exist because i know what would happen to the jewish people if the sort of assholes that fill the ranks of hezbollah ran the world. it wouldn't be pretty.

          but we dance to the music, and we dance

          by chopper on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:57:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You change a few names and events (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            and this is the same claim the Kosovar Serbs made, too. A nationstate based on race, religion, or ethnicity is an anachronism precisely because exclusion on that basis is racism. Survival of the Jewish people and their culture is a separate issue from Zionism and whether an apartheid state like Israel has a place in the modern world.

            •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

              Survival of the Jewish people and their culture is a separate issue from Zionism

              not really. the entire idea behind modern zionism is the survival of the jewish people and their culture. israel was not founded by religious people, it was founded by secular jews who wanted a safe place for their people and their culture to live on in. the issues are one and the same.

              but we dance to the music, and we dance

              by chopper on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:23:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  For a time, the Rabin government depended (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jah4168, TiaRachel, The Mack

        on the votes of Arab parties in the Knesset.

        Although I criticize Olmert for not including one or more Israeli Arabs in realistic slots on the Kadima list, in general, I think we have to recognize the difficulty of a country beseiged by Arab countries including Arab parties in the government.  That is only one of the improvements that I expect peace with Palestine would bring.

        On a more macro level, the more appropriate comparison is between Israel and the post-Jim Crow United States.  Israeli Arabs, like black Americans, often get the short end of the stick and may suffer discrimination.  They also enjoy formal equality and are able to participate in society in many different ways.  Apartheid South Africa, Israel is not.

        Now some people might ask, what about the West Bank?  To me, that is more of a colonial situation, which ought to be ended through a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine.  Unlike South Africa, among other differences, is the fact that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not part of Israel and, unlike in the case of South Africa, a peaceful resolution will result in two states, not one.

        "Apartheid" is a highly charged word.  One is free to use it, but in doing so should be conscious of the fact that many, many people who are critical of particular Israeli policies while supportive of Israel itself will regard anyone who uses it not simply as mistaken but with deep suspicion about motives.  To some degree it is a case of special sensitivity, but it's also grounded in experience.

        •  special pleading (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          "the fact that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not part of Israel"

          Not according to the Israeli right-wing, which claims that "Judea and Samaria" are inseperable parts of Israel.

          It's worth noting that white-run South Africa had essentially an occupation going on in most of the country.

          If the Israeli left wing took the country over again, I would breathe a sigh of relief.  They knew that slaughtering civilians was both evil, and counterproductive.

          -5.63, -8.10 | Libertarian Liberal

          by neroden on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:30:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  well, Israeli politics is weird (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        another American

        For a very long time, Likud and Labor refused to talk to each other.

        But the differences with S. Africa are many.

        e.g S. Africa has a huge Black majority, Israel does not have a huge Arab majority, in fact, it's an Arab minority.

        S. Africa is a huge country with lots of natural resources, Irael is a tiny country with none.

        etc.

        Arab Israelis are discriminated against, no question.  ANd that should stop.  But the situation is more like Blacks in the USA than Blacks in apartheid S. Africa

        Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

        by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:04:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hey wait a minute there partner... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18, neroden, DSPS owl

        You forgets that this is the 1950's, and things have changed. Them Jewish folk (they's white ya know) ain't discriminatin' agin them Arabs (kindly brown) any more than we is discriminatin' agin our negras. We let 'em vote just like any white man votes, why we even puts votin' booths right there in smoke town where they lives. They has rights just like us, an it ain't our fault if they's too dumb to use 'em. Anyhow, why do I's have to splain every damn thing to you stupid libruls?

        When NSA employees are spending their days spying on Americans, what is it they should actually be doing, and what is slipping by because they aren't?

        by MuldraughTim on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:16:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Palestinians have had opportunities (5+ / 0-)

        to get a state, and have repeatedly blown them.

        This is not apartheid, and how this compares to South Africa, I have no idea.  In South Africa, the ideal (now reached) was that everyone was an equal South African.

        Last I checked, I don't think Palestinians are looking to become part of Israel.

        ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING

        by v2aggie2 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:44:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The diarist says (0+ / 0-)
        That Arabs have the right to vote and many are elected to the Knesset.

        I believe the Knesset has 120 members. I also believe Arabs make up around 20% of Israel's population. That means they should have about 24% of the seats.

        My question is: How many Arabs members of Knesset are there?

    •  At times like these (18+ / 0-)

      I sigh and console myself with the fact that most blogosphere bloviation is just trees falling in a forest.

      Sometimes that fact is unfortunate. Not always.

    •  Preposterous Comparison (46+ / 0-)

      Jewish Democrats are just like gay Republicans.

      Bull.  Democrats, especially our elected officials, don't run around sowing hatred against Jews in order to drive wedges between people, distract them from more relevant concerns, and then pretend they're doing it becuase of their religious beliefs.  But that's exactly what the vast majority of Republicans do to gays.  

      That's just a preposterous comparison.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:46:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's keep it preposterous (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cecil vortex, empathy, nonnie9999

        may it be ever more preposterous...

      •  I agree (22+ / 0-)

        That that was an ill-considered comparison. However, it is very easy these days to feel unwelcome around DailyKos as a Jew who has any affinity, on any level, for Israel.

        •  DKos and Democrats... (15+ / 0-)

          ...are not the same thing, as you of course know.  And you and I both know there's a bias at DKos that tilts more anti-Israel than pro-Israel.  But this diary doesn't really do much good, because in some of the same ways that too many of the anti-Israel diarists and commenters indulge in impercision and gross generalization to the point of ridiculousness, this diary does the same.  For instance, conflating Democrat and DKos when it serves to make an overblown rhetorical point.  As emptywheel points out downthread, completely misrepresenting some of the diaries he lists as examples of anti-Israel diaries.  (And the one she cites is a real boner, because it's written by a Jew, describes a conversation with another Jew, and is about IRAQ.  And then there's the silly gay Republican=Jewish Democrat comparison I cited.  

          And I didn't even read this diary really closely and follow any of the links, and I was able to notice those problems.  

          As these kinds of diaries go this one isn't all that hystrionic.  And yes, there's usually too much uninformed or ideology-driven bullshit about Israel spewed around here.  But I don't know that this diary is really that big a help.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:02:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I doubt most of Dkos is anti-Israel. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jah4168, Harkov311, david78209

            The number of anti-Israel posters, while larger than one might like, is tiny as a percentage of members.

            •  Framing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18, Balam

              So if you're against what's going on right now you're "anti-Israel"?  I don't buy it.

              •  No (5+ / 0-)

                If you blame Israel for everthing that has ever happened to the Palestinians you are anti-Israel.  If you reflexively blame Israel for the current situation without thinking through a reasonable alternative you are anti-Israel.  If you act like this response is all based on two soldiers being captured without giving any historical background you are anti-Israel.  If you compare Israel to South Africa you are anti-Israel Finally, if you come right out and say Israel shouldn't exist you are anti-Israel.

                However, if you state that the level of violence in Lebanon is unacceptable and that the US and the UN needs to try to stop it, I agree with you completely.

                Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:18:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  that (0+ / 0-)

                  about sums it up.
                  -Cecil

                  "I'm not the only one with super powers at the bank."

                  by cecil vortex on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 01:04:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No to Being Judge of 'allowed' Critisism (0+ / 0-)

                  This whole blog in my view is being critical about what we see and wanting to improve things.

                  All the better if Jewish democrats want to take the lead. I wish they would!. They are the best chance for a positive influence on Israel.

                  I live in Europe and hear cristism all the time about the U.S., If I agree with the critisism does that me an American Anti-American? or does it make me someone who wants to better America.  I think the later.  Republicans would probably say the former, i.e. don't be critical.

                  I am soooooooooooo tired of cristism of Israel being labled as being against Isreal or Anti-semetic.

            •  The trend FredFred describes is visible in (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jah4168, TiaRachel, jeffwass, The Mack

              lots of progressive publications like the Nation and the Progressive.  Just as has been written in some other recent diaries, it feels very uncomfortable to be a Jewish progressive right now when the anti-Israel posters are a minority or not.

              Author, DOUBLETHINK: A Tale of Unintended Consequences

              by JESchwartz on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:36:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I also doubt most of Dkos is anti-Israel (6+ / 0-)

              But most of us distrust fundamentalism.  Including me.  And I'm Jewish.  And I think it's very fundamentalist to consider a 2500 year old text to be a warranty deed, even if it's a holy text.

              Frankly, there seems to be a realignment going on.  I think it's no accident that what I call "Israel, right or wrong" Jews have made common cause with Christian fundamentalists like John Hagee.   I think they share an authoritarian attitude toward religion,  politics, and life; that gives them a natural affinity that even overrides the conflicts in their prophecies.  (After all, Hagee supports Israel because the prophesy of the second coming to which he subscribes first requires all Jews to return to the holy land before some convert to follow Jesus and join the rapture, while the rest are left behind.  You'd think Jews should be nervous about an 'ally' who thinks that way.  Maybe they figure they've had allies who think that way for centuries, and somebody who'll help you till the second coming is as permanent an ally as you'll find, anyway.)

              I'm comfortable criticizing 'family' here at Daily Kos because I'm part of that realignment, on the other side.  I consider Kossacks to be 'family' as much as Jews -- maybe more than fundamentalist Zionist Jews.  

              I think the assassination of Ytzak Rabin was a tragedy because most Israelis trusted Rabin to negotiate a peace.  The creep who shot him must laugh every day at how well it worked, as well as the fundamentalist zionist fanatics who inspired him.   I think it was comparably tragic that Bill Clinton didn't get to finish mediating a peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  He might have done it if he hadn't been so busy dodging Kenneth Starr and Richard Mellon Scaife.  If George W. Bush had any class, he would have appointed Clinton a special ambassador to the middle east, and told him to keep right on mediating, just as before.  That way Clinton would have had almost as much respect and authority in the negotiations as when he was a sitting president, and he'd have had no time limit.  

              We're all pretty crazy some way or other; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is just a setting on the dryer.

              by david78209 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:43:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is one of the best comments I've seen on (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                EuroDem, david78209

                I/P/Lebanon/US politics. The oil factor would almost complete it. Some "pro-Israel" commenter above said that no gentile nation could be trusted to honor Jewish rights and lives, and I believe that some Jews may consider the US to be no exception. As Richard Perle said way before Al-Aqsa and 9/11 (quoted in Salon), the dependence of the US economy on cheap ME oil keeps the US involved in the area, which he apparently sees as extra insurance for Israel - but which looks increasingly like a fatal addiction on our nation's part that may become a revulsion.

                Re the Rature fantasts: Maybe they [Jews] figure they've had allies who think that way for centuries, and somebody who'll help you till the second coming is as permanent an ally as you'll find, anyway - this has a nicely harsh ring of truth to it, and I take my hat off to you for your elegant sardonicism.

                Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

                by jlb1972 on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:11:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Well put n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                david78209
      •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18, empathy

        We Democrats have elected many Jewish representatives.  They are some of our greatest advocates, and finest statesmen.  Show me one GAY Republican Senator, and openly so at that.
        My issues w/ Israeli foreign policy do not display a hatred for Jews, anymore than my issues w/ American foriegn policy betray a hatred for America.
        I love Israel, I love Palestine, I love Lebanon, I love Humanity.
        Let's all cut the crap, and solve this problem.  Only we can.
        The Conseravtives will never do it, there is too much money to made for them in war.

      •  Jewish REPUBLICANS are like gay Republicans. (9+ / 0-)

        The fundamentalists who control the GOP think that like gays, all Jews are going to hell.  They are also doing their best to make this a fundamentalist Christian country that by its very nature would be hostile to Jews.  How ANY Jew can be a member of the GOP is bewildering to me.

        The Israelophobes here at DKos are not at all typical of mainstream Democratic Party thinking on the Middle East.  

        •  Well said (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Island Expat

          I am always taken aback to Jewish republicans.  I don't get it.  But, for that matter I don't understand why anyone with a net worth under a million dollars would be a repub...

          Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

          by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:22:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  At first, I had the same reaction (0+ / 0-)

        But there is some analogy.  In both cases (gays and Jews), the issue is at the core of their identity.  The difference is that Jews alienated by rabid anti-Israel sentiments (were they to become more prevalent in the Dem. party -- and many of the diaries here lead one to fear they might someday) would have no place to go.  I don't think the core "non-gay" issues (e.g., low taxes) are as central to gays as the core "non-Israel" issues (e.g., economic justice, not living in a fascist state) are to Jews.

        I'm getting some of the same feeling as when black anti-semitism flared in the sixties (e.g., the NYC teacher's strike).

        It's tragic when historic and natural allies are driven apart.

        The Democratic Message: Security, Privacy, Justice

        by Upper West on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:15:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  rabid anti-Israel sentiments (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18, Balam

          Like, "proportionality"?   Don't tell me there aren't any Jews who are vehemently against this.  That would be a very problematic statement.  Lumping all members of a particular religion together and claiming, against evidence, that they all think the same way?  I think there's a word for that . . . .

          •  Excuse me? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jah4168, dianem, TiaRachel

            Did I write that all diaries critical of Israel contained "rabid anti-Israel sentiments"?  I wrote "many of the diaries here lead one to fear that they might someday."

            I did not say that diaries that (without vitriol) argued the proportionality question were in that category.

            And I did not say that all Jews think the same (especially not so on Israel).  Perhaps I made the error of saying or implying that all (Democratic) Jews believe in "economic justice, and not living in a fascist state."

            I think the point is that even Jews who are very critical of Israel's policy have been distressed (like the diarist) by the tone of many of the anti-Israel posts.

            The Democratic Message: Security, Privacy, Justice

            by Upper West on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:02:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fair enough, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18, DSPS owl, Balam

              the response was to a cumulative set of statements, not just yours.  However, I think that "many" is an enormous over-statement.  I'm not sure I've seen more than the occasional (and troll-rated) "rabid" comment.  Certainly not an entire diary.

              Furthermore, saying "Israel is wrong" is not "rabid" or even "anti-Israel".  I say "the US is wrong" regularly, but I'm not anti-US, and no one has ever called me "rabid" for saying such things.

              The point is that saying "Israel is wrong" is neither "rabid" nor "anti-Israel", and to characterize it as such is just wrong.

      •  Here's the thing (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cecil vortex, dianem, TiaRachel, The Mack

        A lot of us on the pro-Israeli side of things.  Ok, a lot of jews have been completely taken aback by what has gone on on Kos the last week or so.  I have devoted a good portion of my life to this site and supporting the causes I thought Kos stood for.  However, this certainly gives me pause.  Do I agree with everything stated in this diary.  No.  But, I do understand the anger and confusion that has him associating himself with gay Republicans.  I don't enjoy being a jewish member of Kos these days just as I am sure it is hard for people who believe in the Republican party to feel that they are not wanted because they are gay.  It may be a broad brush, but at least the guy didn't say Kos is out to get Lieberman because he is Jewish.  See the difference?

        Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

        by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:33:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You Haven't Been Paying Attention (3+ / 0-)

          If you think the conflation of Israel and Jew just popped up in the last week or two, you haven't been paying attention like I have over the last three years.  And while the Israel/Palestine stuff is the most persistently difficult area to maintain calm, there have been and continue to be plenty of other subjects the treatment of which leave plenty of people feeling besieged.  Religion and piety for one.  It's legitimate to attack the relgious right for trying to hijack government or Bush/GOP for a pourous wall between religion and science or governance.  But attacking peoples' religious faith and calling them morons for being believers happens all the time.  The anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stuff that prevailed around here during the cartoon controversy was appalling.  As a nominal/ethnic Roman Catholic, I couldn't help but but feel attacked during the uproar around the death of the previous Pope and the election of the current Pope.  

          Your question is, do you stay around and try to make the place better, or give up and leave.  It's your choice.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by Dana Houle on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:56:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not leaving (0+ / 0-)

            Frankly, not even thinking about it.  Look, I repect you a lot so it's difficult for me to respond to your post.  The only thing I would say is that this seems differnt and more pervasive.  I could be wrong be I don't remember numerous front page anti-Muslim diaries during the "cartoon crisis."  The difference between this current thing and calling believers morons is that that is an opinion about all religions and this seems to be anti-jew.  I didn't see people calling for Italy's demise when the controversy over the pope arose.  I think there is something to being a jew that makes you inherently suspicious of people's motives.  It's probably the laundry list of ways jews have been shit on throughout time that we learn from the first days of hebrew school.  My hope is that we are living in a more enlightened time where my children do not have to worry about being killed because they are jewish like their grandparents did.  The stuff I have seen the  last few days on Kos makes me nervous.  That's why I would ask you to excuse some of the missteps this diarist made.  He's scared!

            Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

            by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:48:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  me too also (0+ / 0-)

              You wrote: "The stuff I have seen the  last few days on Kos makes me nervous."

              all the "these peoples" I've seen have made me profoundly nervous. I've never had any problem with criticisms of Israeli policy. I was raised labor / anti-Sharon, like I'm sure the vast majority of jews on this site.

              It's the tenor of the thing. Not that most of the anti-Israel comments have had the bile. But far more than I can believe. Sometimes with what seems to me a downright creepy # of recommends.

              It all feels like a great big party for Karl Rove and company.

              -Cecil

              "I'm not the only one with super powers at the bank."

              by cecil vortex on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 01:10:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Huh??? (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't see people calling for Italy's demise when the controversy over the pope arose.

              Frankly, I don't see people on DKos calling for the demise of Israel.  If you've got links where the statement didn't troll-rated, bring 'em on.  But if you think Jews all of a sudden became the first and only group to be treated like crap around here by arrogant and clueless morons, you didn't pay attention when other groups were being marginalized.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by Dana Houle on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:07:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  And as for the family comparison (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18

        I guess that depends on the upbringing.

        If one was brought up to critically evaluate the surroundings, including the actions of people near and dear to your heart, one would not automatically subscribe to all their ideologies, no matter how closely related they were. However, if one was brought up to sternly believe in and follow the family members' actions, no matter how right or wrong they are, in a sort of blind allegiance no matter what the circumstances, that is not necessarily patriotism to the family - rather, it is shutting your eyes to reality.  

        This is where objectivity and critical thinking come in play. If my little cousin plays rough with other kids or does something that is morally wrong, I will object. And if his irresponsible actions hurt me, I will take his toys away until I make sure he has learned his lesson. But if, rather than facing the reality, I decide to beat up the other kids just because he is my cousin, something is terribly wrong there.

        Actually, I would be willing to bet that most of the extremists and nationalists who start wars were raised in this self-appreciating way. Never able to see the self-destructing manner of their actions.

    •  As a Jew, I'm feeling increasingly unwelcome here (19+ / 0-)

      For the very reasons you cite -- and I have been a strong critic of Israeli policies for many years.

    •  Really cogent, Fred. . . (5+ / 0-)

      I'm glad you said it.

      Very cleansing. Thanks.

    •  Thank You (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jah4168, israelfox87, FredFred, nonnie9999

      You expressed everything I have been trying to write in my head for the last week.

    •  Don't worry, it is a minority (7+ / 0-)

      There are some who are either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic (or both).  There are some also who are militantly anti-religion, as we found out last year upon the Pope's death.  

      I have discovered that the loudest are usually the smallest.  

      •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

        I'd add to that the people who don't like the fact that Markos is making money off his book and the site. Really, why waste your time with the crazies? They're such a tiny minority, and you're only granting them a megaphone when you make a big fuss about them.

        Oh God, I haven't read your book; I'm sure it was divine
        Especially the part where you turned water into wine

        by nasarius on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:20:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I like that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, nonnie9999

        I have discovered that the loudest are usually the smallest.

        Their mouth is a hummer...compensating for their shortcomings.

      •  I don't see (4+ / 0-)

        many anti-Semitic, or blanket anti-Israel sentiments, quite the opposite.  There is the occasional nut job, on both sides, by the way, but what I mostly see is sadness, frustration and yes, outrage, over what Israel is doing to Lebanon right now.  What I also see is people who are having the courage to step up and say, "right now, what Israel is doing is wrong".  In the US, it takes a lot of courage to say that.  In many circles, including here, that's a shortcut to getting called an anti-Semite, which is nonsense.  And I'm really pleased to see that it's ok to say that, at least on some diaries.

        •  I think that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jah4168, strandedlad

          some folks feel these diaries fail to recognize the suffering of Israeli civilians.  By ignoring their anguish, many people who are also critical of the Israeli government's military actions feel that these diaries seem callous.  

          Spouting the 10-1 ratio doesn't make the dead Israelis' families feel much better.  Just as saying the 50-1 ratio of dead Iraqis to dead American soldiers would probably upset the grieving American families back home.

        •  Look harder (0+ / 0-)

          Once again, I don't think anybody has a problem with people posting that Israel is using too much force in Lebanon.  That is a debatable point that people can discuss.  For example, I think that's wrong.  I should be able to say that too without people saying I am anti-arab.  But, the debate crosses the line when it is not placed in historical perspective and when it is outright anti-Israel because they are monsters.  There is a big difference.  Kos has always been about discussion and not intollerence of either side's viewpoint.  I think that balance has been missing here.

          Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

          by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:43:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Who Blames The Jews? (12+ / 0-)

      FWIW the only diary containing the words "Jews are to blame" is yours. A comment search turns up 12, none of which are actually "blaming the Jews" for this.

      There are many who reflexively distrust the Sharon/Olmert administration -- just as there are many who reflexively (and perhaps rightly) distrust the Bush administration -- but none (so far as I've seen) who blame the jewish people for anything.

      The closest is people who blame Isreli citizens for tolerating their current leadership. This is debatable (especially given how little most of us know about Israeli politics), but it's certainly not anti-semetic.

      I think people critique Israel because they're the "us" in this situation. As Americans, our tax dollars buy the bombs they drop. We are morally culpable when they engage in mass punishment, collateral damage, and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure (e.g. the power and water treatment plants).

      •  This is exactly the point... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dianem, The Mack

        this diary was trying to make.  When you blame Israel you blame the Jews.  It might not make sense to you if you are not Jewish, but trust me it is that way.  I had several relatives die in the Holocaust.  I grew up being ridiculed by Catholic kids for being a jew.  I feel at home in Israel.  It is the one place on Earth where Jewish people are not a minority.  We need that place.  Trust me on this one.  

        I have always told my on-jewish wife that I am willing to fight and die for Israel.  That still stands.  The history of the Jewish people is littered with instances where you die if you are a jew.  That will neve happen in Israel on my watch.  That also is why I give Israel a lot more slack then I do other nations.  

        I hope you can see why jewish people may feel more then a little defnsive when people post anti-Israel posts.  Especially when the majority of them rewrte history in order to make their point.

        Look, I am often times critical of the Israeli gov't.  I know they have not always taken the easiest road to peace, but they constantly are faced with attacks on their civilian population and are surrounded by countries that refuse to recognize their right to exist.  That makes this situation a little different then most.

        Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

        by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:52:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          When you blame Israel you blame the Jews.  It might not make sense to you if you are not Jewish, but trust me it is that way.

          It then logically follows that critique of Israel is defacto anti-semetic. You equate being ridiculed by catholic kids for yr heratige growing up with the critique of a soverign nation-state. Ok.

          I appreciate your connundrum, but I don't accept the equation. We agree to disagree.

          FWIW I think the state of Israel and the worldwide diaspora of Judaism are going to be increasingly divergent in their interests, if not directly at odds. It's not a problem I can do anything to solve (though one my Jewish friends most definitely struggle with), but something tells me that the answer lies in developing the distinction -- probably over generations -- between a State's political/military leadership, a global ethnic group, and one of the oldest and most rich human cultures on the planet.

          In the long run I think it'll work out. Israel isn't going to disappear, and eventually people with a pragmatic, outcome-oriented point of view on both sides will realize they have more to gain through cooperation and accomodation than in further bloodshed. The tragedy is that it's probably going to be a long time coming.

    •  Glad you got it off your chest... (5+ / 0-)

      because you wrote how I have been feeling.

      I haven't felt this way since the 1970s when I was in college. I kept hearing the my dear left wing comrades describe the PLO as "freedom fighters" and how the Jews and their addiction to capitalism will destroy the world and all that rot. This was from professors and the activists themselves.

      Maybe, I was too young and too thin skinned. I tuned out and joined the GOP (Now that was STUPID on my part.)

      Wow....did all that hurt....brings back memories.

      Thanks Fred!!!!

      Proud Commie or Frustrated Capitalist?

      by vassmer on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ahem ... (10+ / 0-)

      the recent anti-Israel diatribes are just making me sick,

      The photos of the recent carnage inflicted on civilians in Lebanon by the IDF makes me sick.

      This is not a private family matter. This a war between two sovereign states.

      •  So do (3+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        chopper, TrueBlueDem, dcg2
        Hidden by:
        Petronella

        The photos of the carnage inflicted on the Isaelis make you a tad sick,a little muscle ache perhaps?

      •  this is the kind of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        highacidity, jeffwass, The Mack

        statement that some people will find very inflamatory.  i am sorry that so many lebanese civilians are dying with american made bombs.  i am equally digusted by murders of israeli civilians by hezbollah's rockets.  ignoring the suffering of either civilian population just seems callous.

      •  so what (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cecrops Tangaroa

        go get sick and then figure out a realistic way to keep it from happening again.  I am not interested in what makes you sick.  Does that carnage make you more or less sick then other carnage?  Do you even know for sure that what you see in those pictures was actually done by Israelis in this current conflict   I know I fucking hate it when babies die for any reason, but you sound like a pro-lifer with this carnage crap.  What are you doing to alieviate your sickness.  Nothing is my guess.  Get over your self-righteous sickness please.  

        Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

        by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:12:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jah4168, Cecrops Tangaroa

          I thought I was the only one likening these awful photos of carnage to the pro-life crowd's tactics.

          The thing is these carnage photo diaries only show the victims of one side of the conflict.  What really annoys me (actually it scares the hell out of me) is that such one-sided use of the photos do NOTHING but stir up wild emotions, make people turn off their rational brains, and want to hate HATE the people that could do that to another person.

          Anybody showing such photos should either show both sides to discourage war in general.  If they only show carnage from one side they're just stirring up hatred and doing their part to keep the conflict going.

          The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

          by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:31:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  i agree totally (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, strandedlad

      i don't really know what israel thinks its doing, but the state of analysis here on daily kos is a goddamn joke

      its mostly offensive, mostly trite and almost all one-sided

      I believe in saving money. I believe in having a house. I believe in keeping things clean. I believe in exercising. www.walken2008.com

      by The Exalted on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:55:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fantastic Diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jah4168, dpinzow

      As a Jew, you crystalized my thoughts exactly.

      Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

      by Democratic Hawk on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:56:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for the diary, Fred^2 (6+ / 0-)

      I was nearly on the verge of giving up dKos for good, I started getting so angry/sad/frightened at the amount of venomous hate seeming to spew from the keyboards of many dKosers.  

      I can understand why so many here are strongly against Israel's policies, especially this current Lebanon campaign, but the amount of hateful vitriol really scared me, people seemed more intent to get others to hate Israel than to work towards peace.  And we have plenty of historical examples to show what happens when a people are dehumanized as evil monsters, and how the rest of that society reacts.

      Regarding general consensus of hatred, there was recently a recommended diary showing two girls maybe around 10 years old (yes, a whopping TWO young girls) writing some messages on ballistic shells.  The diarist conveniently put that picture right next to a picture of grieving Lebanese family with the caption "Message received".  And the whole diary was from a bent extrapolating these two girls, who most likely come from wingnut families, onto the beliefs of all Israelis.  It was misleading at best, dangerous hateful propaganda at worst.  Using disturbing photos of grief-stricken familes and bloody carnage lets people's emotions (oh, those evil EVIL Israelis) override control of their rational thoughts.  Yeah, there's assholes in any country, any community.  But this whole diary was entirely pointless and dangerous,  What was the diarists point?  That there are two Israelis out there hoping for carnage?  But the thing that scared me most about this diary was it had 200+ recommends!.  How many supposed progressives really buy into this foxnews-like propaganda that until recently I assumed was the predominant characteristic of the bushnut crowd?

      Anyway, thanks for writing this diary, you expressed many of the feelings I've had, much more eloquently than I could hope to do, and you've really made me feel perhaps a little more welcome here at dKos again.

      The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

      by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:33:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I come here as a human being first (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, anonymousredvest18

      As a human being I can understand the violence against Israel. Israel was attacked after its modern creation by the armies of several neighboring nations. During this attack people who wanted no part of the violence fled. After the fighting was over Israel didn't allow these people to return to their homes.

      These people who apparently would have lived in peace side by side with Jews are now fighting Jews for the return of their property and their national identity; the same act that created Israel created their state too.

      No, the refugees didn't choose this fight, Israel did by not allowing them to return to their homes in peace. Why? Because Israel wanted to maintain a Jewish majority (an artificially constructed democracy at that) and  because Zionists believe they are entitled to the land. A person can't say they want peace if they don't want justice and stealing refugees' property isn't just.

      Frankly, I don't believe ethnic loyalties add rationality to the discussion.

    •  one criticism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, Monique Radevu

      Turks are neither Arabs nor even Arabic speaking... just so you know. I gave ya a tip tho.

      You're a moron if you think I'm going to die for Israel or George Bush--Me.

      by Nulwee on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:25:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks, Fred! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla

      Just registered here yesterday so this is my first post. I almost abandoned the notion of posting here at all until I read Fred's diary. Thanks, I feel better now knowing there are a few mensches here. Many of the attitudes here are just appalling because they don't reflect a clear understanding of the big picture and historical context.

      Suggested reading:
      The Hand That Feeds the Fire

      Suggested viewing:
      Arab-American psychologist gives Muslim cleric hell on Al Jazeera

      (Note for Mac folks: This WMV will play if you have the MS player or Flip4Mac, available at versiontracker.com)

    •  i think Jews are just a tad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl

      sensitive about the whole thing. or not. either way, i couldn't care less. the "issue" for me is, should the US Gov't directly support Israel or not.
      i vote not.
      not that i particularly care one way or the other.
      but, if Israel is going to have these little pissing contests every few years - and they So are - then the problem is, what pissing contest does the USA officially support?? and not support?? and why?? and, how do "we" make that determination??
      see??
      it ain't about being anti-Jew or anti-Israel or anti-this or anti-that.
      most of us Truly Don't Care. including yours truly.
      but, it's just getting Way too hard to tell the players (and teams) without a scorecard these days. and, Israel has Long grown up (from the days when they needed some hand-holding from the good ol' USA). it's not about anti-this or anti-that.
      it's about fighting their own battles.
      no help required from older brother.
      simple as that.

      •  I'm recommending (0+ / 0-)

        your comment, meangene, not because I agree but because I think your attitude, too, should be represented.

        Another attitude seldom stated is whether any country does itself a favor being so closely allied with the USA considering America's present reputation.

    •  It takes two to have a fight (0+ / 0-)

      Where the civilian population of Lebanon is widely perceived as non combatant and images of dead children tend to upset and radicalize people, one has to wonder what Israel gains from this?

      Israel, land of sDm and gmr, could be a land of Mlk and Hny. To come into the kds^ of Lebanon with war and hatred is hrm.

      Live Free or Die (-8.88 -9.49) IMPEACH THEN TRY FOR WAR CRIMES

      by rktect on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:43:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nothing Wrong (51+ / 0-)

    There is nothing wrong with an anti-Israel diary posted on Daily Kos.  There is also nothing wrong with an anti-Hezbollah or anti-Hamas diary posted on Daily Kos.  No country, state or party is sacrosanct here, not even our own.

    Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006.

    by bink on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:06:04 PM PDT

    •  And Honestly (16+ / 0-)

      I don't believe that Israel is so fragile that diaries critical of its policies -- no matter how many -- do much to alter either its well-being or the way that it conducts itself.

      Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006.

      by bink on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:08:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  no, there's nothing wrong (10+ / 0-)

      unless the diary takes the view that any Israeli action is inherently wrong and must be condemned in the strongest of terms. Unfortunately, that is what I have seen for the most part.

      (-7.25,-5.95) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." -Edward R. Murrow

      by adamschloss on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:10:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Fact (6+ / 0-)

        That opinion, although incorrect, could also be openly-diaried if someone feels like it, so that it can be exposed as erroneous by commenters hereabouts.

        Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006.

        by bink on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:12:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just to play devil's advocate (10+ / 0-)

        That is the argument that those on the right use to dismiss this community's criticism of the Bush administration.  That is, they argue that we somehow believe that any action taken by the Bush administration is inherently wrong and evil.  This allows them to dismiss our criticism out of hand.

        Of course, we do have to stretch our memories pretty far back to remember any actions that this administration took that we liked.  Give me a minute...

        Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. -- Milan Kundera

        by Dale on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:05:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  IMHO ... (5+ / 0-)

        ... that's almost a natural reaction to the side claiming that any action of Israel's is right, and any criticism of Israel is anti-Semetic bias.

        Refusing to criticize Israel -- especially by countering body counts with unrelated body counts, blaming the victims, or otherwise completely dismissing the issue -- can at times simply come across as insensitivity.

      •  You're wrong. (24+ / 0-)

        Most of the diaries I've seen and commented in state specific actions of Israel as being wrong.  For example: bombing hospitals and ambulances in Lebanon is wrong.  Targetting dairies and pharmaceutical plants is wrong.

        There have been a handful of radicals that say, essentially, everything Israel does is wrong, because Israel is evil.  Those comments have been troll-rated into oblivion, and deservedly so.

        The simple fact is that most people on dailyKos loathe war, and most especially war waged against civilian populations.  Most of our comments, therefore, decry the actions of Israel because they are, at this time, committing by far the greater share of atrocities.

        Time and time again, people have been at pains to point out that, yes, Hezbollah is wrong for firing rockets into Israel.  Strangely, very very few of Israel's partisans are willing to admit that their country is committing war crimes on a scale with the American crimes in Iraq.  Why the discrepancy?

        •  Ok (0+ / 0-)

          But it's easy to accuse Israel of bombing hospitals and ambulances and dairies and pharmaceutical plants and babies.  I personally don't believe that any of that is true.  I personally believe that Israel has always tried it's best to limit civilian casualties.  Don't you understand that Israel could wipe Lebanon and the majority of the Palestinians off the map without really flexing it's muscle?  If Israel was lookin to kill lots of people it certainly wouldn't be too hard.  I believe that the terrorists want you to think of Israel in the way you describe Israel.  I believe that the International Community would be much better served telling the terrorists that they support what Israel is doing.  I believe that the only way this conflict is ever going to come close to ending is if people like you stop spouting these "specific actions" and look into why you want to believe this.  War sucks and I think we would all be better off without it.  You are encouraging this war to continue and future wars to happen when you allow people who want war to cloud your judgement.  I know you mean well, but this truly doesn't help.  

          Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

          by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:22:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ummm...no. (0+ / 0-)

            Israel shares with Hezbollah a complete disregard for world opinion.  Not that world opinion should always be followed, but that is a distressing similarity.

            What Israel should NOT do, is give the rest of Lebanon common cause with Hezbollah.  Hezb. was in the process of becoming marginalized in a democratic Lebanon.  They struck out at Israel, and Israel made them relevant in Lebanon again.  Totally counterproductive.

            And finally, you're just wrong about Israel targetting civilian infrastructure, and civilians.  Yes, they could nuke the entire country, or carpet bomb Beirut.  Should we give them credit for that "restraint"?  Read the news - the facts are indisputable that Israel is targetting the entire Lebanese economy along with, at best, a callous disregard for civilians.  Why else warn villagers to leave, and then send GUIDED MISSILES to blow up their vehicles as they flee?

      •  intention (8+ / 0-)

        It has to do with intent.

        As Jews we are taught that one's intention is one of the key determinants of an actions rightness /wrongness. So when Hezbollah lobs rockets at Israeli cities, it is with the intention of killing civilians. Their stated goal is to eradicate Israelis. When Israel makes air strikes in Lebanon it is not with the intention of killing civilians (otherwise why would they drop fliers warning of on coming strikes). It is with the stated intent to push back Hezbolla terrorists.

        Critics say that the disproportionate number of Lebanese civilian deaths belies that. But it does not. The superior fire power, weaponry, you name it....of the Israeli's makes it incumbent on them to exercise caution. So when Israel miscalculates and she has..and badly.... the fallout is catastrophic for the Lebanese civilians.

        It is an uncomfortable truth that those trying to avoid civilian casualties are in fact inflicting more of them than those trying to inflict such casualities. But you can be sure, that were Israel's fire power and weaponry in the hands of Hezbollah, Israel would be wiped off the map.

        What are you supposed to do, when terrorists send rockets into your back yard trying to kill your kids?

        •  But intention (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          is never objective. And using it as an argument to justify civilian casualties leads to all kinds of moral sandtraps.

          •  Intention is crucial under international law. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jah4168, Cecrops Tangaroa

            Intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

            One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

            •  Bombing hospitals (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18, Petronella

              and leveling city blocks can hardly be considered 'attacking military targets'. What's the intent or objective of that? Sorry, I have enough evidence to make a judgment.

              •  Please provide evidence and context. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                strandedlad, FredFred

                For example, Haifa is being bombed by a Hizbollah unit based in Tyre.  In trying to destroy the missiles or at least suppress their firing, Israel may destroy civilian buildings because that is where Hizbollah bases them.  Some people see the destruction and blame Israel.  I ask for evidence.

                •  Evidence is for losers (1+ / 2-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cecrops Tangaroa
                  Hidden by:
                  another American, Petronella

                  See that post is exactly what I am talking about.  That is anti-Israel bullshit.  It has no basis in reality.  Someone from Hizbollah said it so it's true.  That is the type of crap that perpetuates this conflict.  The Arab terrorists need people to believe they are being oppressed.  Ohterwise, they have no leverage.  If the international community would just once say you got what you deserved.  Stop fucking with Israel and they won't blow you up.  But no, fucking Calital thinks Israel is a monster who blow up fucking hospitals for fun.  ARGH!

                  Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                  by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:06:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Got what they deserved? (4+ / 0-)

                    Who are you talking about, the innocent civilians? I don't think they're the ones fucking with Israel. What a ridiculous response - knee-jerk outrage without even bothering to understand the argument I'm making. As if there's any question at this point that the Israeli government is not engaging in indescrimanate destruction of Lebanese infrastructure.

                    •  Yes there is a question (0+ / 0-)

                      They aren't engaging in some indescriminate campaign.  If they were, why wouldn't they just kill more people?  They are fully capable of taking them out.  Why wouldn't they just lob random rockets into Lebanon and hope for the best.  Why wouldn't they nuke Iran?  they don't because they would really prefer not to have to kill anyone.  Yours is the knee-jerked reaction to a situation you don't understand or take the time to think through.  Let me help you.  Israel has superior military capabilities to Hizbollah.  They have two choices.  Suffer a great number of casualties fighting Hizbollah's waror change the terms of Hizbollah's war and inflict some limited civilian casualties in Lebanon.  They are not fucking blowing up the whole country indiscriminately as you apparently believe.  They are using sound military strategies to minimize casualties on their side of a conflict which frankly they could have done without.  Innocent people die in war.  It sucks.  That does not make Israel the monster you describe.

                      As to your other point, no I am not talking about innocent civilians.  Although, I think that term is misplaced in this current conflict.  It sucks that people who don't want war sometimes die in a war, but I do not support any alternative that would end up with more Israelis dying.  

                      Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                      by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:32:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So according to your logic (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        anonymousredvest18

                        just because they 'only' kill 300 civilians instead of the 300,000 they could kill it justifies their actions? Do you understand the concept of moral relativism - you should, you're a master of it. I notice from your other posts you constantly accuse other posters of statements they didn't make - in this case that Israel is a monster or that they're blowing up the whole fucking country - neither of which I said, and then use the words you put in their mouths against them. And your flippant remark that 'it sucks that people who don't want war sometimes die in a war' shows you for the moral coward you are. Yeah, and I don't want my fucking tax dollars contributing to the deaths of innocent people in Iraq or Lebanon or anywhere else for that matter.

                        •  i am confused (0+ / 0-)

                          Your original post stated:

                          Bombing hospitals and leveling city blocks can hardly be considered 'attacking military targets'. What's the intent or objective of that? Sorry, I have enough evidence to make a judgment.

                          then you stated:

                          As if there's any question at this point that the Israeli government is not engaging in indescrimanate destruction of Lebanese infrastructure.

                          It sure seems to me that you are trying to show Israel to be a monster.  Who else levels city blocks and bombs hospitals and indesciminately destroys infrastucture?  Were you trying to paint Israel in a good light with those comments.  My response about being able to kill more people is not moral relativism.  It's a fact.  Why if Israel was doing as you claim would it not inflict even greater damage?  Can you explain that to me?  Is there a limit to the amount of random destruction Israel is trying to create?

                          My remark about war sucking is hardly flippant.  You act as if people dying in a war is in and of itself an outrage.  That may be true, but the fact is that as long as there is war people will die and that sucks.  I think we would all be better off if everybody stopped killing and hurting other people.  I have spent a great deal of my life working towards these goals.  However, it doesn't seem right to me to apply a different standard to Israel.

                          I don't want my tax dollars going towards incarcerating non-violent people with drug problems.  I don't want my tax dollars being used to enrich corporate whores.  I don't want my tax dollars to be used to torture people and shuttle them to other countries.  I don't want my tax dollars being used to spy on our conversation.  Does that make my argument 100% right?

                          Santorum wants to steal your social security. Casey in '06!

                          by jah4168 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:01:09 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  For inappropriate language . . . (0+ / 0-)

                    especially "you got what you deserved."  Your underlying point would be made more effectively without the offensive language.

        •  Maybe stop stealing other people's land? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          Many of todays terrorists are children of Palestinians whose land was stolen in Israel's 40 bald-faced land grab.  

      •  what I've seen around here (6+ / 0-)

        is criticism of a specific set of actions taken by Israel in response to the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers and the firing of rockets by Hezbollah into Israeli territory by taxpayers who are involuntarily underwriting Israel's course of action via US military aid to Israel.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:14:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Funny. (7+ / 0-)

        I haven't seen any such diaries...certainly not anything recommended.

        We're bombing Iraq to kill terrorists, and killing more civilians in the process.  Israel is bombing Lebanon to kill terrorists, and killing more civilians in the process.  I don't like either situation.

        Look, Israel obviously has the right to exist.  It obviously has the right to respond to acts of terrorism.  It should be the Jewish homeland forever. The problem is that this state is reacting to an attack  nearly as recklessly as we did.

        I don't understand why we can make these same arguments regarding the U.S., but not regarding Israel.  Hell, I'll feel this way about any state who behaves in this manner.  I certainly did about Serbia (yes, Milosevic is far more extreme), and I'm a Serb.

        I'm just sick of all the killing.  I want all of it, every last bomb or gunshot, to stop.  ASAP.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. -- TrueBlueMajority

        by gkn on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:43:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some differences (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel

          between what we are doing in Iraq and what Israel is doing in Lebanon:

          1.  The terrorists we are supposedly fighting aren't in Iraq, aren't supported by Iraq, and didn't come from Iraq.  
          1. The existence of the United States is not threatened, that of Israel is.

          The thing that I have not seen on these diaries, on either side, is an outline of a solution to the problem of Hezbollah in Lebanon.  There have been some proposals about Palestine, but I haven't seen anything sensible about Lebanon.

          Hezbollah is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.  So, how should Israel respond?  The notion of surgical strikes is impossible, Hezbollahites don't wear big signs saying "I am a Hezbollahite" they are part of the population.  Equally, what Israel is doing is too much.  

          But what should Israel do?

          Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

          by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:14:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The New York Times has a good proposal. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gkn, neroden

            More Than a Cease-Fire Needed presents a series of proposals for immediate action that, IMHO, liberals, progressives, and Democrats should join in supporting.

            "Lebanon," the New York Times contends, "needs more than U.S. marines to evacuate Americans. It needs the fighting to stop and the international community to step in and guarantee the security of Israel and Lebanon. That will require not only a cease-fire and peacekeepers but also a guarantee that Hezbollah will be forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia."

            The Times recognizes both that

              * it is "doubtful that air power will ever be able to achieve" Israel's aims "to destroy Hezbollah's huge missile stocks, cut off its supply lines from Syria and Iran, and prove to the Lebanese people the high cost of sheltering the terrorist group," that
              * more fighting means "more suffering on both sides of the border[,]" and that
              * "The United Nations called on Hezbollah to disarm nearly two years ago. But the United States and Europe never brought real pressure to bear, believing that Hezbollah would shed its weapons as it was drawn deeper into electoral politics. It did not."

            Against this background, the Times calls for a "robust resolution" by the United Nations Security Council, seeing it as "a prerequisite for robust diplomacy and clear threats of punishment for all who resist."  Such a resolution, the Times says, should

              * "require all sides to stop fighting and authorize the deployment of a peacekeeping force"
              * "order Hezbollah to withdraw from Israel's borders and begin to disarm"
              * "order Syria and Iran to stop supplying their client."
              * "The price for refusing should be international sanctions and complete isolation."
              * "mandate the return of Israel's kidnapped soldiers"
              * "pledge major international contributions to help Lebanon rebuild from the destruction of the last week and bolster its weak democratic government."

            The Times recognizes, however, that the Security Council may not be so "explicit."  In that case, it says that "the United States, Europe and key Arab allies, who are also eager to see the fighting end and Hezbollah contained, will have to bring serious pressure on their own."

            But we should not wait for the Security Council to act:  "Western powers and responsible Arab leaders, who more often than not sit on the sidelines, should begin a major diplomatic push in the region."  This effort should begin in Damascus " to tell President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that he will be persona non grata if he keeps meddling in Lebanon. The same message needs to be delivered to Tehran."

            In particular, the United States must take an active lead, "not least because it's the only country Israel trusts. That means Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- who has been dragging her feet to give Israel more time to fight -- needs to get on a plane and visit Damascus as well as Jerusalem. The longer she delays the more lives will be lost, and the harder it will be to build a lasting peace."

            •  Pretty much what I was going to say. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DSPS owl

              UN action and peacekeeping troops until everyone puts down the guns.  For as much as I hate war, I would've supported a major international effort (hell, call it a front in the war on terror), after Afghanistan, to start hard-core negotiations between Israel and its neighbors, then putting neutral boots on the ground till everyone gets used to the new system.  If Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/etc. wants those troops to leave, they have to stop bombing.  Otherwise, the troops stay.  This would help Israel (they're not the enforcers, so Arabs have less 'justification' to get angry with them), the Arab states (Palestine gets one of some sort, while the Lebanese no longer feel like they need Hezbollah to fend off potential Israeli attacks) and, hopefully, the wider world as well.  God, I wish SOME president would make this a real, dedicated foreign policy focus -- and yes, I know Clinton did quite a bit but got derailed by the blue dress.

              Unfortunately, under dipshit-in-chief, we went to Iraq and created another problem.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. -- TrueBlueMajority

              by gkn on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:46:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Funny? (0+ / 0-)

          ntending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

          One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

          •  I don't think it's 'characteristic' (0+ / 0-)

            of Israeli conduct, though I'm sure we'd all start to react as such after all the suicide bombings they have to live with.  That's why someone else needs to step in and tell both sides to cool off (for my unprofessional solution, see above.)

            I understand that all the "vital factors" you mentioned really are important.  That said, if you're trying to avoid "collateral damage", it makes no sense to bomb civilian airports and roads.  Kind of difficult for people to leave, then, even if they're forewarned.

            Secondly, if there was a precipitating threat to the very existence of Israel before the current fighting, I've not heard about it.  Of course Hezbollah was being inflammatory, but they weren't, as plf515 suggested above, threatening Israel's existence by kidnapping two soldiers. I assume the Israeli army has special forces.  Granted, I'm far from a military strategist, but is there no way that they could have sent a team in to retrieve their soldiers and destroy narrower targets?

            Look, if my beloved, hard-won country were threatened and surrounded by hostile nations, I'd be willing to fight to the death for it as well.  But I'm very curious as to whether the current action will simply erode future security.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. -- TrueBlueMajority

            by gkn on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:57:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing wrong indeed (19+ / 0-)

      but everything is wrong when there are hundreds of anti-israel diaries and VIRTUALLY NO anti-Hezbollah, anti-Hamas, anti-Sudan, anti-Ethiopia, anti-terrorism, anti-Mumbai bombing etc diaries.

      •  true (24+ / 0-)

        just like there are lots of anti bush/neocon Iraq war diaries, yet no anti-insurgency diaries. It's because our congress condones these actions which are paid for with billions of our tax dollars.

        Karl (Rove) is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. -Larry Johnson

        by McGirk on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:38:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed (20+ / 0-)

          Right-wingers attack Daily Kos by claiming that we criticize America but we don't criticize Iraqi insurgents, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Osama bin Laden, etc.  They use this evidence to suggest, if not outright conclude, that Daily Kos is anti-American and pro-America's enemies.  We rightly reject this argument as invalid.  Why is it any more valid for Israel/Palestine?

          •  not a valid comparison (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            michael1104

            DailyKos is not anti-american, it's democratic, liberal and progressive, it's by definition anti-republican. This site is NOT by definition anti-Israel and it's a shame it acts like one.

            Unlike the criticism of the war in iraq and bush administration, the rabid anti-israel sentiment on this site does not reflect the position of the democratic party and does not reflect the position of the vast majority of the democratic constituency. As a matter of fact 80% of the congressional progressive caucus (and 95% of congressional democrats and 100% of senate democrats) voted for the resolution in support of Israel.

            •  Not a valid counterpoint, either (10+ / 0-)

              Can the apologists of the Israeli government's violence please stop brandishing the critics as "anti-Israel?"

              This is sadly reminiscent of the hawkish liberals who derided the doves as pacifist America-haters who didn't deserve to be taken seriously.

              If you're against the Iraq War, is it fair to characterize your position as anti-United States?

            •  Most of the Democratic Party (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18, gkn

              voted in favor of the Iraq War too, while people at this site were against it.  

              •  not really (0+ / 0-)

                21 senate and 126 house democrats voted against the war resolution. http://archives.cnn.com/...

                Iraq war resolution was highly controversial among democrats, the support of Israel on the other side is virtually unanimous.

                •  What's your point? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sopiane, anonymousredvest18

                  That we're not supposed express a view on Daily Kos if it's not espoused by most Democrats?  Try this one--99 Democrats in the Senate voted for the Patriot Act the first time around.  Had Daily Kos been around in 2001, would it have been improper for us to oppose the Patriot Act?

                  Of course, my opening question is rhetorical.  I don't even think you have a point.  I think you're just making arbitrary distinctions to avoid the implications of the argument expressed in your initial post.  

                  •  Correction (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    anonymousredvest18

                    Not 99 Democrats in the Senate......all but one Democrat in the Senate.  I wish it were 99 Democrats in the Senate...

                  •  my latest point (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    eps, TiaRachel

                    was to point out that you were wrong when you claimed that most democrats supported the Iraq war resolution.

                    My bigger point is that diaries on Israeli retaliation are extremely biased and one-sided while atrocities, injustices, racism, genocide and civilian casualies anywhere else in the world are completely ignored,  there is virtually no criticism of often disgusting policies of the Sudanese, North-Korean, Iranian, Lybian, Syrian and other governments. Let alone the fact that the actions of Palestinians electing Hamas and Lebanese voting for Hezbollah, that the policies of the Lebanon government regarding Hezbollah and ignoring international laws and UN resolutions are far from blameless either.

                    •  Once again (3+ / 0-)

                      you're using the same bad logic that I criticized earlier.  Yes, lots of governments do bad things that aren't discussed much on Daily Kos.  Apparently, that annoys you.  Well, right-wingers are annoyed when we criticize the American government without an equal number of diaries criticizing the Sudanese.  To them I say, so what?  Why waste time criticizing governments that we all agree are terrible, and over which Americans have no control?  I pose the same question to you.  

                      •  yep (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        another American

                        this is an american site representing american opposition movement so the criticism of the american government is expected and warranted. When among 200 countries in the world, dozens of military conflicts, a hundred genocidal regimes and millions of innocent victims of violence there is only one country that's singled out and constantly criticized, the only word to properly describe this is "anti-Israel bias". The sincerety of people who keep screeming about 300 innocent victims of Israeli retalations and have never said a word about 200,000 victims of Sudanese genocide is questionable at best.

                        PS What makes you think that this country has control over Israeli military activities, as a matter of fact we have a much better chance to stop the genocide in Sudan than to stop Israeli retaliations.

                        •  If you really think (4+ / 0-)

                          that anti-Israel bias is the only explanation for why people talk about Israel, then you're not thinking very hard.

                          What about the fact that Israel is located in a strategically important part of the world?  What about the fact that it's one of the world's few nuclear powers?  What about its role as a sacred location to three of the world's major religions?  What about the fact that it gets more aid every year from the U.S. than any other country?  What about the fact that reflexive American support for Israel is almost always cited as one of the grievances that Muslims have against America?  What about the steady stream of propaganda we hear about how Israel is the greatest friend the U.S. ever had, the most moral country in the world, etc.?  What about the fact that genuine criticism of Israel is virtually non-existent in the mainstream media?  What about the fact that the Israeli-Lebanon crisis is front page news everywhere?

                          If you think that Israel is getting all this attention on Daily Kos solely because of anti-Semitism or irrational hatred of Israel, and not because of any of the factors above, you're dreaming.  

                          By the way, Israel gets billions from the United States every year.  That's why I think that America has some control over Israeli military activities.  If we cut whatever aid we're giving to Sudan, nothing would change.  Cut even a fraction of American aid to Israel, and I think that they would pay attention.

                          •  hmm, so it's not about innocent victims after all (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TiaRachel

                            It's about all the reasons that you mentioned, if it was about innocent victims Dailykos participants would be all over Sudan, not Israel, right? Now it's about three major religions and we still bash Israel even though it's the only country in the region actually providing equal access for ALL worshippers. It's ironic that the rational for Israel bashing changes from diary to diary, from post to post but the conclusion is always predefined.

                            BTW the financial aid to Israel was $2.56 billion in 2005, given that Israel's GDP is $155 billion I don't think the termination of our financial aid will make a dent in their budget or affect their actions. They'll just stop buying our precision guided bombs, start buying conventional non-guided bombs from China and Russia for half the price and will probably save more than what we give them.

                          •  Hmmm (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            I never claimed that it was all about the sheer number of victims.  Of course there are other factors involved.  I notice that you make no attempt to defend your claim that anti-Israel bias is the only explanation for the attacks on Israel.  Looks like you don't have a response to mine, so instead you've resorted to accusing me of changing my stance from a previous one--one that I embraced only in your own imagination.  

                            I assume that you're referring to diaries that explain their sympathy for Lebanese civilians by pointing out that they are innocent victims.  If that's the case, you're ripping their comments out of context.  People sympathize with civilian victims of the American occupation of Iraq for the same reason.  But wait, I forgot, under your rules only victims of American bombs deserve any sympathy.  We're not allowed to talk about victims of any other conflict unless the Democratic Party does so first.  

                            By the way, if you don't think that America's reflexive support for Israel makes any difference to Israel's behavior, then AIPAC and other "pro-Israel" lobbyists are really wasting their time, aren't they?

                            This is probably my last post for the night.  If you actually have anything to say that isn't disingenuous or illogical, I'll reply another time.  (In other words, I probably won't reply another time.)

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                            what do you mean I did not defend my claim, sure I did. The rational for Israel bashing changes from post to post, the rational for ignoring genocide, oppression and atrocities in the rest of the world changes from post to post, but the end result is always the same, Israel is the only country in the world that is regularly attacked/criticized/bashed on this site (and I am not even talking about diaries questioning Israel's right to exist).

                          •  No, you didn't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            I argued that those other factors are all significant in explaining why Israel gets attention.  You didn't explain why I'm wrong.  You just made a bizarre claim, with no evidence at all, that the rationale keeps changing.  That, my friend, is called an evasion.  And that's why I'm convinced that I cannot debate you in good faith.

                            P.S. Have you written on Daily Kos about genocide, oppression, and atrocities in the rest of the world--in a context other than "defending" Israel or smearing its critics?

                          •  it's not about you personally (0+ / 0-)

                            hundreds of anti-israel diarists/posters come up with hundreds of different explanations of why they bash Israel and Israel only, you have yours, they have theirs, once their rational is refuted they come up with another one, when they run out of excuses the last resort is always "innocent victims" and the US financial aid. Excuses change, the result remains - Israel is the only country in the world that according to them and you deserves daily Dailykos bashing.

                            PS I did not write about genocide, oppression and atrocities but I did not write about Israeli or Palestinian "genocide" and "atrocities" either so I  am merely being consistent, people who find hundreds of reasons to write daily about Israeli "genocide and atrocities" but not about horrific acts of any other country are hypocritical and biased IMO.

                          •  And your theory is (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18

                            that the site is loaded with anti-Semites, I suppose?  That's the theory that you find to be more plausible than anything else you've heard?

                          •  that's actually funny (0+ / 0-)

                            the anti-Israel crowd keeps insisting that being anti-Israel is not the same as being antisemitic, I've done my best to use the term "anti-Israel" throughout all my posts and now you're trying to put the word "anti-semite" in my mouth. Anyway the answer is no, that's not my theory.

                          •  Then what is your theory? (0+ / 0-)

                            And several people in the so-called "pro-Israel" crowd in this thread have explicitly made the anti-Israel=anti-Semite connection.  I don't know why you would be going to all this trouble if you weren't trying to imply some anti-Semitic conspiracy.  But fine, what is your theory if it's not that Daily Kos is anti-Israel?

              •  Actually, no (7+ / 0-)

                Totally unrelated to this diary, but your comment touches on a point that drives me fucking bonkers. Conventional wisdom still says that "the Democrats" were for the Iraq War before they were against it, but conventional wisdom rarely lives up to its reputation.

                Fact: 58% of the Democrats in Congress OPPOSED the Iraq War Resolution. Look it up, then spread the word. The majority of Dems voted against the Iraq War!

                Of the 258 Congressional Dems in 2002, 148 (21 Senators, btw) voted NAY. Of the 270 Congressional Republicans, only seven voted for the position that the majority of Americans now believe was the correct one to take.

            •  'rabid anti-israel sentiment ' (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              Could we stop with the inflammatory language please?  If I say it's wrong to destroy a country's infrastructure and kill hundreds of innocent people, how does that make me anti-anything?  Other than pointless killing?

              Oh, and I've had my rabies shots.

      •  Please step back and think about it for a moment (60+ / 0-)

        Ask yourself - why no anti-Hezbollah diaries?  Or, more generally, why no anti-terrorism diaries?

        Do you honestly think there's a need for that?  Are you distraught that no one takes up the brave position and writes a diary condemning terrorism?  Where is your diary on that topic?

        Come to think of it, I haven't seen any diaries condemning burglars who break into houses and kill their occupants.  There haven't been any because there's really no dispute on that topic.  Essentially everyone agrees.

        Same with terrorism.

        Now why are there diaries on Israel?  I assume there are a diversity of reasons, but among them are our government's seemingly boundless and conditionless support for Israel.  There's Israel's disproportionate level of response to recent incidents.  Then there's the frankly scary and fundamentally un-American views of conservative Christians pining for rapture at the expense of protecting this nation's interests.  As you and FredFred appear to think, there may be some anti-Semitism as well.  I don't know.

        But I don't think there should be any surprise why there are few if any diaries condemning terrorism and more condemning Israel's recent actions.  And the fact that there are far more of the latter than the former should not be taken to mean Hezbollah is generally supported or Israel is generally hated.  

        That, in my opinion, would be a foolish conclusion to draw.

        •  Hey, I wrote a diary today (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inclusiveheart, flo58
          that was sort of "anti-terrorism."  It focused on proliferation and the rise of NON-STATE groups like Hizbollah.

          Sadly, it fell to the wayside.

          <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

          by bronte17 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:15:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We DO need more anti-terrorism diaries (11+ / 0-)

          while we're at it, I want to see more diaries taking strong, principled stances against:
          *murder
          *oil spills
          *BSE (mad cow disease)
          *heart attacks
          *Timothy McVeigh
          *maternity ward fires
          *Sunday drivers
          *the Plague
          *puppy kicking
          *Darth Vader's crushing force grip
          Where has the DKos community been on these issues for so long.  This is a travesty!  You're all terrible people.  

          "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of." ~Arthur Dent, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

          by Entheate on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:53:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sacrasm aside (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Entheate

            i do think that there should be more diaries about terrorism, considering the GOP doesn't know shit about it.  and i do think that more attention should paid to victims of terrorism.  how can we help terrorism?  how can we help the civilians who are terrorized by their governments and why doesn't our government stand up to them?  there is a lot to be said about terrorism that would fall outside of anti-bush and anti-governmental policy diaries.

      •  But condemning terrorism (7+ / 0-)

        Is so much wheel-spinning...they're criminals and it's not like public opinion is going to sway how a criminal behaves.  I think a state should take the high road.  I'm very disappointed in Israel's actions, but reading whiny diatribes that attribute so-called anti-Semitism because one doesn't condone Israel course of action is just stupid.  

        And your response is the exact sort of bullshit I'm sick of...like "Gee, the Muslims are sure silent about that terrorist attack."  Well fuck me, as I a child I really don't remember newspapers and random people asking Irish-Americans to denouce IRA attacks.  But somehow Muslims are held to a much higher standard.  

        To add one last thing, if a person questions Israel's decision to do what it has DOES NOT necessarily make that person anti-Semitic.  The mere fact that that sort of logic is being applied here of all places makes my skin crawl.  After all, that's the sort of logic used in calling us traitors for questioning the policies of this administration.

        "If it ain't blog, it's blah." - My husband ~ July 19, 2006

        by fabooj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:04:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  then how about (0+ / 0-)

          condemning the policies of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan? Those are countries just like Israel, aren't they. Are their policies perfect, are they blameless of what's going on in the region? Yet the only country in the world whose policies are regurarly criticized (to put it mildly) on this site is Israel. The rest of  the goverments in the ME and the world are bastions of honesty, integrity tolerance and pacifism.

          •  Oh that's just blatant bullshit (7+ / 0-)

            There have been several diaries about the president of Iran and his (IMO) crazy way of handle "diplomacy".  And either you are being purposely obtuse or displaying amazing lack of search skills when you say there haven't been diaries condemning Sudan's extermination policies.  

            But then again...no one is stopping you from writing about all these injustices.  I guess it's easier to whine about untruths than to commit an action.

            "If it ain't blog, it's blah." - My husband ~ July 19, 2006

            by fabooj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:33:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  lol (0+ / 0-)

              several diaries about the president of Iran, no kidding? We're getting several anti-Israel diaries an hour. Even before this conflict started, after Israel already withdrew from Gaza we were still getting several anti-Israel diaries every single day. Of course nobody then bothered to start a diary about Hezbollah Katyusha attacks and unwillingness/inability of the Lebanese government to enforce UN resolutions,   disarm Hezbollah and secure Israel's borders.

              •  So it's a numbers thing with you? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18

                Why don't you write a fucking diary condemning whatever country you want.  You don't even have to have facts (since they seem to elude you anyway), I'll even recommend it.  Anything to stop you from making an even bigger fool of yourself...simply because there were diaries on the Hezbollah attacks, there were diaries talking about the kidnapping, the murders of the soldiers and everything that happened before Israel even started buzzing the houses of the heads of states of Syria and Lebanon.  

                Use.
                Your.
                Fucking.
                Search.
                Feature.

                "If it ain't blog, it's blah." - My husband ~ July 19, 2006

                by fabooj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:53:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  of course (0+ / 0-)

                  it's a numbers thing, did you even read the diary, that's exactly what it's about - a huge number of Israel bashing diaries. And of course I can write a diary condemning whatever country I want but that's not the point, the point is that a huge number of people on this site seems to be obsessed with the idea of writing anti-Israel diaries.

              •  Iran bombed a neighboring country (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                neroden

                killing hundreds of civilians, knocking out its water supply, destroying its infrastructure and no one wrote a diary on Daily Kos about it? No kidding!

                If that were true, you'd have a point. But it isn't, is it?   Come back when it happens and I guarantee you'll see as many diaries attacking Iran if they attack one of their neighbors.

                Otoh, Israel did just that, and like it or not, that's news and of course people are talking about it.

          •  The Sudan! Haiti! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18, neroden

            I have written much about the governments of the countries you say no one on Daily Kos has paid attention to. I am relatively new to DK and have not yet written any diaries, but am a moderator on another progressive blog and have started several ongoing threads on some of the countries you mentioned. Most of what I have had to say about their governments has been extremely negative.

            No one has yet accused me of being anti-Sudanese, despite the research I have done and the not too flattering facts I and others on that forum uncovered about the Sudanese government's atrocious and criminal behavior towards its own people. Why is that?

            No one has yet accused me of being anti-Haittian either, despite the extremely negative information I have provided about that country's different governments. Why is that?

            I have also written about Cuba's various governments and have somehow escaped the charge of being anti-Cuban!

            But whenever I criticize the Israeli government, someone inevitably accuses me of being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. Why?

            So to answer your question, it is my opinion that if someone does write a diary that is critical of the Sudanese, Haittian or Cuban governments, they will not be accused of being anti-the-people of any of those countries.  Why does this happen ONLY with Israel?

            I suggest you read the diarist's quote from, imo, the very wise Rabbi Michael Lerner asking 'Who are Israel's Friends'?  Here is part of what he had to say. Maybe you should give it some thought:

            Who are Israel's friends and the friends of the Jewish people? Those who support this path toward peace and reconciliation. Who are its enemies? Those who encourage it to persist in the fantasy that it can "win" militarily or politically. Just as the objective enemies of America in the 1960s were those who egged it on to persist in the Vietnam war, and those who were its objective friends were those of its citizens who actively opposed that war, so similarly today the friends of the Jewish people are those who are doing everything possible to restrain it from cheerleadng for Israel's militarist adventures and refusal to treat the Palestinians as equally entitled to freedom and self-determination as the Jewish people.

               Who are Palestine's friends? Those who encourage a path of non-violence and abandoning the fantasy that armed struggle combined with political isolation of Israel will lead to a good outcome for Palestinians. Who are its enemies? Those who preach ideas like "one state solution" or global economic boycott without offering the Jewish people a secure state in Palestine--paths that will never produce anything positive but continued resistance by Israel and world Jewry

            .

            Seems to me that we who are critical of the current Israeli government's militaristic 'solutions', are truly Israel's friends.

        •  I dont get your point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          "And your response is the exact sort of bullshit I'm sick of...like "Gee, the Muslims are sure silent about that terrorist attack."  Well fuck me, as I a child I really don't remember newspapers and random people asking Irish-Americans to denouce IRA attacks.  But somehow Muslims are held to a much higher standard."

          Well, don't you think Muslims should renounce these attacks?  Is that a "high standard"??!!

    •  Spot on Bink. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      The soul that is within me no man can degrade. - Frederick Douglass

      by Kimberley on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:12:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not the anti- (36+ / 0-)

      it's the hate.  It's clear that there's a lot of pent up Israel-hate here that's coming out now.  Of course, people can post whatever they want -- I don't think Fred suggested otherwise.  In fact, I'm sure there are plenty of us here who are generally supportive of Israel who want an opportunity to talk about the mess they are making of the situation but can't because of the degree of hate any such discussion brings out.

      The question is, what are people to think when they come to an ostensibly Democratic site in which there is a 10:1 ration of Israel-hate diaries to reasonable discussion?

      Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

      by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:22:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IreneNC, TiaRachel, Caldonia, soyinkafan, isis2

        Your response was better than mine below.

        -Fred

        Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
        -3.13 -6.05

        by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:23:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  but they're not all 'hate' diaries. (28+ / 0-)

        They're just not. You say its not the "anti" its the "hate," but then you cite your ratio, presumably based on the list in this diary, to sefine ALL "anti" as "hate," making your point a distinction without a difference -- and in the process only reinforcing the idea that pro-Israeli-govenment posters can abide ZERO criticism or disagreement.

        If any who disagree with you are "haters"....well, come on.

        Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

        by odum on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:30:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, but. . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soyinkafan

          there's enough of it to get into the comment section in every diary.  I've seen a couple of genuine attempts to really think things through on a serious level -- and the next thing you know -- pow!  That's not the fault of the original diarist, but it does happen, and it certainly flavors what people who come here for the first time see.

          Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

          by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:07:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I mentioned in a earlier diary (5+ / 0-)

            The hateful comments from both sides, seem to be more trolls than anything.  Then we have more than a few people who are barely active in this community posting diaries, condemning the entire community about a few idiotic trolls.  

            "If it ain't blog, it's blah." - My husband ~ July 19, 2006

            by fabooj on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:11:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  that doesnt justify (5+ / 0-)

            rhetorically lumping them all together and dismissing them.

            Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

            by odum on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:19:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Believe me. . . (0+ / 0-)

              . . . the last thing on Earth I want to do is dismiss them.

              Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

              by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:55:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  okay... (0+ / 0-)

                ...neither does it justify rhetorically lumping them all together as bigots.

                Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

                by odum on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:07:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  odum

                  I don't want to conflate the words "bigot" (which I've never used on this site, I believe) with "hate".  Although I don't think it's productive, hate is sometimes a justifiable emotion.  The only thing I'm asking is for people to see the hate that does exist and understand how it affects people who don't share that hate.

                  Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

                  by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:31:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thats totally fair... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...and a critical point to make. All I would ask that you dont throw out a disclaimer saying you support the right to disagree (just not to hate), but then by implied example, include any and all disagreements into the "hate" category. That would seem to suggest your disclaimer is a rhetorical tool for moral advantage, rather than a genuine statement. I'm not saying you were doing that at ALL, I really wouldn't presume to....you should be aware that it kinda looks that way, though.

                    Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

                    by odum on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:20:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well. . . (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      odum

                      but then by implied example, include any and all disagreements into the "hate" category.

                      I certainly don't want to suggest that.

                      I think the comments fall into three categories:

                      1. Genuinely "useful" ones that want to reach a "fair" and "realistic" solution, either short or long term, to the terrible situation in Lebanon (understanding that the terms "useful", "fair" and "realistic" are subject to interpretation).
                      1. Comments which simply want to establish the evil nature of the country of Israel.
                      1. A middle ground in which the commenter probably believes they're being helpful but is, in fact, heating up the debate and loosely using language and unsubstantiated reports to try to score points for "their" side.

                      I would guess that we disagree about the percentage of the discourse that falls into the third category -- I'd place it at fifty percent.  In addition, I see a lot of the first category that goes un-troll-rated by too many people.

                      Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

                      by LarryInNYC on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:53:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  For some people (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18, neroden

          saying, "Israel is wrong" is equivalent to being anti- or hating, or other terms that also get thrown around here with disturbing regularity.  They don't see a difference, unfortunately.

          •  Precious few here at DKos. (0+ / 0-)

            Intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

            One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

            •  I think you're assuming a lot (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              You're just assuming people don't recognize complexities, don't know history, haven't spent time in the region?  I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and simplistic (and you've called them much worse in the past few days), which is pretty much what you say, and why you get flamed so often.

              •  I can only judge by what I people write. My (0+ / 0-)

                assumptions always start off favorably disposed.  More than I would  like, however, reality disabuses me.

              •  Perhaps I owe you a fuller response. (0+ / 0-)
                1. It may well be so that comments would be equally strong if the party with greater military power, therefore, inflicting the greater damage, were France or China or the United States.  Nevertheless:
                • The only things we readers have to go by are the words and tone an author chooses to use.  I hope you will agree that many -- I'm not trying to estimate how many -- of the comments directed at Israel are very sharp indeed and devoid of anything that encourages belief that the poster has any empathy for Israelis or has taken into account the complexities that concern me and that you recognize.
                • Other countries currently are doing, or rather recently have done, much worse than whatever Israel is doing in Lebanon, but those conflicts have not occasioned anything resembling the sustained diarying and sharp comments directed against Israel.  One example is the Sudanese government's war against Darfur.
                1. I think I agree with those posters who identify the feeling underlying many critical posters as revulsion against the loss of human life as such, which makes Israel the more obvious object of criticism because it has inflicted more damage than Hizbollah (though not for Hizbollah's want of trying).  But I have a serious problem with this emotional response.
                • Someone, I wish I could remember who, wrote that it's always the victims of aggression who cause wars because if they surrendered there would be no war.  The point is that, in the first instance, the responsibility for the destruction of warfare falls on the party that precipitates the fighting:  either by attacking or taking threatening actions that legitimate a defensive, preemptive strike.
                • Even in the second instance, responsibility for civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure does not necessarily belong to the party whose forces literally "cause" it.  The reason is that a party to a conflict has a moral and international legal obligation not to use protected persons as a shield, not to locate its forces, materiel, etc., among civilians.  In other words, as apparently is the case, Hizbollah locates rockets it uses to strike at Israel amongst and near civilian, then, subject to an exception discussed in the next sentence, it is Hizbollah, not Israel, that bears responsibility for all the damage caused by an Israeli attack directed solely at the legitimate military target.  The exception is that, as is true of any military operation, Israel bears the responsibility for trying to make sure that it tries to minimize collateral damage and that the reasonably foreseeable risk of collateral damage, especially harm to protected persons (basically, civilians), is proportional to the legitimate military objectives (not to the casus belli, to the legitimate military objectives).
                • My contention is that, simply looking at the fact of harm to civilians does not tell us how much responsibility, if any, Israel bears for that harm because what we need, and do not yet have, is evidence that would allow us adequately to evaluate each instance under inquiry.  And we should bear in mind that, even if it turns out that in particular instances Israel may have made the wrong calculations and acted disproportionately that does not wash away Hizbollah's responsibility for creating the situation in which, to strike at legitimate military targets Israel, Israel had to calculate, and sometimes get wrong, the risk to civilians and the proportionality of the action.
                1. Finally, in this perhaps overlong comment, I want to add that I write as someone who, in addition to opposing the settlements from the outset, also actively opposed the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and was bitterly critical of each Likud and "national unity" government.  If one can understand and accept these facts, it may
                • give one pause before simply writing off my comments as those of a blind supporter of Israel; and
                • at least lead to some introspection about the kinds of posts that someone like me finds troubling.
      •  Conflating (16+ / 0-)

        You are saying all anti Israel diaries are hate diaries.  Does that mean I hate Israel since I don't like their policies?  Did I hate Afghanistan when it was run by UBL?  Answer to both: No.  

        Israel is just another country being crazily run -- just like ours.      

        When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

        by flo58 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:37:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not conflatin. (0+ / 0-)

          Intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

          One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

      •  Not true (19+ / 0-)

        If you see criticism of Israel as hate for Israel...well, that's your problem.  I've read nearly every diary on this subject posted on dailykos, and virtually every diary includes affirmations of Israel's right to exist and to defend itself.  And those comments get lots of "4" ratings, too.

        If you choose to be blind, so be it.  I can't force you to see clearly, any more than you can force me to write comments praising Israels bombing of Lebanese hospitals.

        •  Yep, and it's starting to really piss me off (8+ / 0-)

          Why is this so difficult? Uh, Anti-Likud is not the same as anti-Israel. Got it?

        •  Wake up and smell the coffee. (0+ / 0-)

          Intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

          One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

      •  well... (6+ / 0-)

        if you believe that any disagreement with Israeli policy is evidence that of anti-Semitism and any diary expressing this is a "hate diary", you'll find plenty of evidence of pent-up anti-Israel hatred. Though the Israelis who are part of the peace movement in Israel might loudly disagree with you. Or are they anti-Semites as well?

        I am an American citizen. My first loyalty is to America. What interests me in this situation is what's best for America.

        And it's clear that what's best for America is for Yet Another Israel-Arab border squabble is NOT for this situation to expand into the WWIII the neocons think is their only change to create a "New World Order" with America in charge.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:25:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Larry, (0+ / 0-)

        I have much respect for you, but you're all wet on this one.

        Criticizing Israel (rightly) does not equate to hate.

        The simple fact of the matter is, the slightest criticism of Israel is not allowed.  Period.  The troll ratings start, the anti-semeticism charges fly, and all hell breaks loose.

        I support Israel's right to exist, but I want to put my foot up her ass.  She's out of control, and has been for some time.

        If that makes me hate Israel, or anti-semitic, then so be it. I have broad shoulders.  

        I have long said there is going to be a horrendous backlash against Israel/Jews for not allowing criticism.  And with Israel's latest actions, you're starting to see it.  

    •  Don't disagree (12+ / 0-)

      Anyone can post anything they'd like within the terms of service, and if I don't like it, I can leave.  Free country.  

      My point was that there's a near constant criticism of Israel on dKos, that it has gotten much much louder recently, that the commentary about Israel on dKos is very heavily weighted towards critcism - support is nearly absent, and that all of the above make it very uncomfortable to be a Jewish kossack.  I (just me) feel like many diarists who condemn Israel have not made any significant effort to try to understand the other side (just like there are folks who reflexively support Israel no matter what - but the number of those folks are much less on this particular site).  So my hope is that rather than blindly condemn, we listen first, try to understand.  Only with understanding will the larger problem ever be resolved, IMO.

      -Fred

      Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
      -3.13 -6.05

      by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:23:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cool (7+ / 0-)

        Maybe you could write those diaries that would inform us and change the direction around here?

        Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006.

        by bink on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:37:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's pretty much an ordinary instinct (8+ / 0-)

        to defend the underdog. As long as Israel, with U.S. support, has military superiority over the Palestinians and the Lebanese, a lot of people will tend to side with the Arabs.

        From what I've read, few of the Israel critics seem to perceive Israel's existence as being precarious.

        •  I agree with that theory (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sopiane, Shiborg, Opakapaka, DSPS owl

          As Democrats we spend so much energy trying to support those who nobody else will - the poor, the elderly, various minorities - people who deserve someone to look after them and speak up for them but who don't have the backing of rich corporations to lobby on their behalf.  

          Then we look at Israel - which compared to its neighbors is very wealthy.  There is thriving industry, especially high-tech.  The billions of dollars of aid given Israel by the US also help (note: we give Billions to Egypt as well - the ratios and amounts were set up in the Camp David accords - you could argue that the $$$ was the spoonful of sugar that helped the medicine go down that day).  Then there are the Palestinians, who are poorer, and who have nobody really representing them - there was Arafat but he was representing himself.  And there is Hamas, but they are so focused on eliminating Israel that I don't believe they represent the majority of Palestinians, regardless of the election results.  

          So it is in our nature to speak up for them - since nobody else will.  

          That said, this isn't a simple issue where Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right.  Not saying the inverse is true either.  I don't think "right" and "wrong" are useful words in this context.  

          -Fred

          Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
          -3.13 -6.05

          by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:41:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're finally making sense (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            That said, this isn't a simple issue where Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right.  Not saying the inverse is true either.  I don't think "right" and "wrong" are useful words in this context.  

            The relevant questions for American are:

            • What are America's real interests in this situation?
            • What, if anything, should we do about this in the short run?
            • What, if anything should be do about this in the long run?

            In the long run, I favor defunding both sides, the Middle East oil nations by replacing oil imports from them with green/alternative oil, and cutting off military aid to Israel as part of an overall withdrawal of the US from the Middle East.

            Note that if the terrorist groups in the Middle East are no longer getting oil money, the need for Israel for military aid from the US will largely disappear; I know of no significant non-oil exports from the Middle East oil countries... but Israel will continue to sell high-technology to the USA.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:32:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think this is why I am kind of pissed at Israel (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18, Opakapaka

          Just like 2fatt said, most American's and I suppose most people, tend to support the underdog and maybe its just the fact that most modern countries beginnings can be traced to some form of terrorism,  including the USA and Israel, but it seems like we, (US and Israel) are the school yard bullies in this.
           

          "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." ? Napoleon Bonaparte

          by ichibon on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:13:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The underdog is Israel (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FredFred, TiaRachel, plf515

          The reason I have such a hard time with this debate on Kos is that too many people here confuse who is the underdog.

          As far as I can tell, there are a lot of people think that because Israel has the better military, they aren't the underdog.

          But they are the ones who are surrounded by millions who want to wipe them off the map, and who have shown no reluctance to use military (and non-military force) to acheive those ends.

          Israel does a lot of horrible things that they shouldn't do, but that isn't really the point here.

          The point is that I think what's driving a lot of the sentiments that the diarist decries is a reflexive belief that if you don't have the military, you are the underdog, regardless of geopolitical and historical realities.

          •  I think this is the root cause (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FredFred, anonymousredvest18

            of most of the disagreement on this site. We all just disagree on who is the underdog.

            I think Israel is fifty times stronger than Hamas or Hezbollah, and that both Hamas and Hezbollah combined don't come close to being a threat to the existence of Israel.

            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 09:55:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I am trying to hear you (16+ / 0-)

        You make some very good points - that we should all be balanced, that there is a majority of pro-Lebanon diaries, etc. - but I have some qualms agreeing with you.

        For one thing, the MSM in the USA is very pro-Israel biased, because if you perform the same analysis you did you would find that stories are much more sympathetic to the Israeli size along many dimensions.  These include who is portrayed as the victim, who is portrayed as justified in responding, who they actually talk to, what grieving realtives they talk to, etc.

        I am inclined to think that when conflicts are covered, there should be an objective standard.  As gruesome as this may sound, you should roughly allocate a proportional fraction of coverage to the fraction of deaths one side has suffered.  By your own numbers, things look about right (2 pro Israel, 23 anti).  Not so in the MSM -- not even close.

        The other point you make I wholeheartedly agree with: we should try always to look to as many perspectives as exist.  But I honestly must say that for someone who cares nothing who 'wins', because nobody here wins, I think the Israeli government is harming the Israelis, and by extension of what you say, the Jewish people.  So as an atheist pan-humanist -- someone who tries to not really care about ethnicity in making moral judgments -- I feel the Israeli government, in this action, is hurting the Israelis as much as the Lebanese.  And by virtue of the fact that many do make the close link between Israel and Jewish people, the Jews are getting hurt as well.

        I hope you do not find that offensive, it is not at all meant that way.

        •  Likewise. (0+ / 0-)

          Intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

          One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

      •  Anyone who really cares about Israel should (30+ / 0-)

        be concerned about the actions of its current government and even more concerned about who is and who is not supporting Israel's actions in Lebanon.

        While I see why you are upset, I think you are missing something very important. Instead of focusing on the number of, what you see as, 'anti-Israel' diaries, look at the reaction of the world and ask the question, 'is what the Israeli government doing good for Israel?'

        The fact that there is so much negative reaction (and be honest, this is not hatred for Israel, but an honest reaction to policies that people disagree with) should be of great concern to those who support Israel.  

        Look at who is supporting the actions of the Israeli government. The Bush administration??  Are you not aware of how hated the Bush administration is throughout the world?  Is this good for Israel? To have this most despised US president on their side?

        Today, even the British have criticized the Israeli government's actions in Lebanon. The UN, Russia, China, France and on and on. How is this 'good for Israel'?

        As you yourself point out, there is hardly any support for the current policies of the Israeli government and it's not just here on DK.

        If anything, I question the motives of supposedly 'pro-Israel' individuals. Why on earth would anyone who loves Israel support, or not outright condemn the current policies of the Israeli government?  That's what I find puzzling.

        I think that anyone who loves Israel would be screaming the loudest at its current government. There are Israelis who are doing so, why not join them and work for what will most benefit that country?  It certainly isn't what's happening now, and accusing people of 'hating Israel' because they condemn what their consciences cannot condone, even if they love the country, is a little disingenuous, imo.

        It's like the rightwing here accusing those of us who opposed the Bush administration's war on Iraq, of 'hating the US'.  If anything, the exact opposite was true.

        I am saddened by having to criticize both this country and Israel. It's far better if we can be proud of the countries we love. But it's our duty to speak out when even our own country does wrong. The same goes for Israel.

        Finally, I do wish people would stop discriminating against Israel by claiming special treatment for it as though it were somehow different than other nations. It isn't. So can we just treat Israel like any other legitimate country for a change?

        •  That was really well said!!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          If I could recommend more, I would.

        •  Thank you - that's precisely the point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          FredFred's counting exercise equates criticizing Israel with being anti-Israel.

          I think it's entirely possible that the actions the Israelis are currently pursuing will turn out to be highly detrimental to their own interests and long-term survival.

          And I think it's also entirely possible that those who truly do hate Israel and the U.S. would like nothing more than to see these actions unfold unabated -- in keeping with the Russian revolutionary Chernyshevsky's principle of "the worse the better" (the idea that the worse things become for those on the bottom, the more inclined they will be to launch a revolution or whatever).

          Friends don't let friends ... (insert self-destructive behavior here)

        •  YES!!! (0+ / 0-)

          I said basically this in another diary today.  But you just said it better.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. -- TrueBlueMajority

          by gkn on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:50:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  To people of good will. (0+ / 0-)

          One problem I have, and I'm someone who from the beginning of the settlements folly has opposed them and many other particular Israeli government policies, is the lack of empathy for Israelis and the intolerance of complexity too many comments betray.

          For example, intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

          One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

          •  I am sorry if I am among those you perceive to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            have a lack of empathy for the Israeli people. Nothing could be further from the truth, though. It is because of my empathy for ordinary Israelis that I have so much concern about the actions of a government who is acting in their name, much as ours is now, and maybe giving figurative ammunition to true enemies of Israel.

            Sometimes, in the effort to make a point and to stay on topic, I suppose we feel that some things go without saying. But your comment makes me realize that maybe we should not assume that. So, I will say what I did not say in my previous comments, I do empathize with the Israeli people. I wish with all my heart that they could just live in peace and raise their families without fear.

            I grew up, like many others, believing that finally, Israel had provided a safe haven for Jews, and that its very existence represented justice at last.

            I read Exodus, (and was privileged to meet Leon Uris a few years ago when he spent time in his Eastern LI home, near where we live) Ann Frank, the history of WW11 and cried at 'man's inhumanity to man'.  There were few happy endings for the Jews in  most of the stories I read, except for Israel. As a little girl, I found it unbearable almost to read of the horrors inflicted on the Jewish people and was as angry as a child can get at such injustice.

            It is with great sadness, therefore, that I find myself unable to defend the actions of the Israeli government towards the people of Lebanon now. You say there are complexities and that there are things we don't know yet. That may be, but from what we do know, many innocent people are dead, a country has been demolished, and imo, none of this was necessary, nor will it in any way ensure security for Israel.

            So it is with regret that I cannot change my opinion, but that in no way means I do not have sympathy for the Israeli people. I hope this post will help you understand that ~

            •  Thank you for your thoughtful comment. In that (0+ / 0-)

              spirit, I hope you will not take amiss the following response.

              1. You well may be right that comments would be equally strong if the party with greater military power, therefore, inflicting the greater damage, were France or China or the United States.  Nevertheless:
              • The only things we readers have to go by are the words and tone an author chooses to use.  I hope you will agree that much -- I'm not trying to estimate how much -- of the comments directed at Israel are very sharp indeed and devoid of anything that encourages belief that the poster has any empathy for Israelis or has taken into account the complexities that concern me and that you recognize.
              • Other countries currently are doing, or rather recently have done, much worse than whatever Israel is doing in Lebanon, but those conflicts have not occasioned anything resembling the sustained diarying and sharp comments directed against Israel.  One example is the Sudanese government's war against Darfur.
              1. I think you are correct in identifying the underlying feeling of many critical posters as, if I understand you correctly, revulsion against the loss of human life as such, which makes Israel the more obvious object of criticism because it has inflicted more damage than Hizbollah (though not for Hizbollah's want of trying).  But I have a serious problem with this emotional response.
              • Someone, I wish I could remember who, wrote that it's always the victims of aggression who cause wars because if they surrendered there would be no war.  The point is that, in the first instance, the responsibility for the destruction of warfare falls on the party that precipitates the fighting:  either by attacking or taking threatening actions that legitimate a defensive, preemptive strike.
              • Even in the second instance, responsibility for civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure does not necessarily belong to the party whose forces literally "cause" it.  The reason is that a party to a conflict has a moral and international legal obligation not to use protected persons as a shield, not to locate its forces, materiel, etc., among civilians.  In other words, as apparently is the case, Hizbollah locates rockets it uses to strike at Israel amongst and near civilian, then, subject to an exception discussed in the next sentence, it is Hizbollah, not Israel, that bears responsibility for all the damage caused by an Israeli attack directed solely at the legitimate military target.  The exception is that, as is true of any military operation, Israel bears the responsibility for trying to make sure that it tries to minimize collateral damage and that the reasonably foreseeable risk of collateral damage, especially harm to protected persons (basically, civilians), is proportional to the legitimate military objectives (not to the casus belli, to the legitimate military objectives).
              • My contention is that, simply looking at the fact of harm to civilians does not tell us how much responsibility, if any, Israel bears for that harm because what we need, and do not yet have, is evidence that would allow us adequately to evaluate each instance under inquiry.  And we should bear in mind that, even if it turns out that in particular instances Israel may have made the wrong calculations and acted disproportionately that does not wash away Hizbollah's responsibility for creating the situation in which, to strike at legitimate military targets Israel, Israel had to calculate, and sometimes get wrong, the risk to civilians and the proportionality of the action.
              1. Finally, in this perhaps overlong comment, I want to add that I write as someone who, in addition to opposing the settlements from the outset, also actively opposed the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and was bitterly critical of each Likud and "national unity" government.  If one can understand and accept these facts, it may
              • give one pause before simply writing off my comments as those of a blind supporter of Israel; and
              • at least lead to some introspection about the kinds of posts that someone like me finds troubling.
              •  I do not write off your comments and thank you (0+ / 0-)

                for taking the time to explain your position and what it is that concerns you about my comments and those of others regarding this situation.

                You make good points, from a legal standpoint, if eg, this 'case' were ever to be presented in a courtroom.  In such a situation we would have to consider all that you outlined before passing judgement on anyone. If you were representing Israel in such a case, I think you would be very persuasive.  So, no, I do not dismiss your points from that pov.

                But can you also consider why the reaction of so many people is simply shock and horror when they see the results of the bombings?  We don't see 'collateral damage', we see children, parents, human tragedy and because we are human, we react by relating to those ordinary people and imagine 'what if that was my child or mother, father etc.'  

                We don't see it in a legal sense, but rather on a basic human level. That is only natural, imo. And the anger you see is directed at the Israeli government because it is they who are doing the most damage.  If the situation were reversed, and it was Hezbollah  inflicting the most damage, the anger would be directed at them.

                I believe most people are reacting naturally to a horrible situation, the way they might to a drunk driving accident if they were present. They would be emotional and outraged and angry. Later, however,  when the case was presented in court, the emotion and anger would not have a place there, and the jury would be directed to consider only the facts presented and the evidence.

                In a way, you are asking us to move to the courtroom phase of this tragedy and to put aside emotions immediately. To do that, we would have to be pretty cold, imo. We are not at that point yet. Do you not see that?  

                I think you are concerned that the reaction you are seeing is harmful to Israel. I think most people can and do separate people from governments.

                I'm not denying that there are some who hate Israel, who actually are anti-semetic and will use this to condemn Israel, but I do think they are a small minority. I aslo don't see that in the comments here to be honest.

                In a way, imo, you are taking the position of, say, the mother of the allegorical drunken driver I mentioned above, who knows her son has done wrong, but tries desperately to protect him anyway, as much as she can because she loves him and knows he is a good person.

                The best she can do is get him a good lawyer, and try to make the jury understand that he is not a bad person, and did not intend to cause harm.

                I would not blame her for that, but others might not agree. And her concern, (and mine too, and yours I believe) is that things could get out of hand because of the results of his bad decision and emotions may cause her son to be punished more than he deserves.  But he let her down, even if he did not intend to cause harm.

                I think the Israeli government has let its people down, putting them in an untenable position. Imo, the best thing Israelis can do is to condemn their government's actions. But like the mother, some may fear that if they do that, it will seem as though they are abandoning Israel. I can understand that.

                Still, many Israelis, thousands of them, are condemning their government, just as we here have condemned ours for its invasion of Iraq.

                I don't know the solution to Israel's problems in the ME. And it's just my opinion, but I do not think this invasion will in any way, make Israel more secure.

                I hope you are not offended by my attempt to understand your position, but I can totally sympathize with the 'mother' I mentioned, and can fully understand also, your concerns. But still, I am now horrified by what's happening in Lebanon, and of course, in Iraq.

                I truly wish we had wiser leaders, here, in Israel, and elsewhere in the world. I do believe there can be peace, but people have to want it enough to choose better leaders.

                Thank you again for your thoughtful response.

                •  My apologies for just seeing your post. (0+ / 0-)

                  I understand that you might think I'm trying to move the discussion to a (hypothetical) courtroom.  And I agree that people are simply shocked by the photographs emerging from Lebanon; so am I.

                  But what I'm really trying to do is urge all of us to

                  • use the emotional intensity of our responses to horror to fuel efforts to achieve a cessation of armed conflict, release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and disarming of Hizbollah (without which the situation will only repeat itself in the future); and
                  • get beyond our emotions to use our powers of reason in evaluating, and forming moral judgments about, what has been going on.

                  I have no stake in the success of the present Israeli government, except that it is much preferable to me than a right-wing alternative.  I am sensitive, however, to the vitriol directed against Israel as such.  

                  With genuine respect, I think the drunk driver analogy badly misplaced.  Nothing justifies driving under the influence of alcohol.  In the current situation, however, it was Hizbollah that invaded Israel.  People of good will, I believe, necessarily must acknowledge that Israel had the right to defend itself.  As a political, moral, or legal matter, we may differ over whether Israel over-reacted, but its right to respond is not in doubt.

                  In judging whether Israel over-reacted, as I am inclined to think it did in the Gaza Strip (again in the course of legitimate self-defense), we need to do just that -- judge -- not react emotionally.

                  In conclusion, therefore, I understand the impulse to respond emotionally, but in formulating policy and judgments of this sort we must strive to resist being swept away by our emotions.  To conclude with an example on which I hope we agree:  Bush & Co. succeeded in amassing majority support among Americans for invading Iraq by an appeal to emotion rather than reason.  Let's not make the same mistake in a different context.

      •  Sorry, maybe I am stupid, but (6+ / 0-)

        it seems to me like you are saying that if we are criticizing what Israel is doing now, it means that we have not studied what is going on, and have not made any effort to understand the Israeli point of view.

        I have been a supporter of Israel's right to exist since the good old days you wrote about when my contemporaries were supporting the PLO.  I disagreed with them then and I still agree that Israel has a right to exist, and to defend itself.  I have been following all the news about what is going on as closely as possible, and I still think what Israel is doing is reckless, inhumane, unjustified, dangerous to itself, the region, and the US, and will lead to humanitarian and political disaster.

        Does this make me anti-Israeli?  No.  Israel's betrayal of its own ideal grieves me every bit as much as Bush's betrayal of the constitution grieves me.  But I cannot pretend it is not happening.

        "Lady Sybil...she was large and she was kind."

        by Lady Sybil on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:32:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well put... (4+ / 0-)

          I too believe Israel has the right to exist but I refuse to excuse the bombing of Lebanese infrastructure (which if the same were done in most situations would be clearly considered terrorism, I'm sorry). Collectively punishing the Lebanese population because of Hezbollah is pretty hard to defend. Israeli's lives are considered precious as you said; obviously the lives of innocent Lebanese civilians should be precious too.

          I refuse to have the Holocaust used as justification for the immoral tactics of the Israeli government. Being Jewish doesn't mean automatically excusing or justifying the warped policies of the Israeli government...and if it matters, yes I'm Jewish and I'm not a self-hating Jew! I just hate immoral policies and the killing of innocent people.

      •  I think there is a lot of criticism (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        celticshel, anonymousredvest18

        because of, like, all the dead civilians. I'd venture to gather most people on this site are virulently anti-war. The US government is the only one capable of stepping in and mediating this debacle and for various reasons they've forfeited that responsibility and it's infuriating.  

      •  Lack of empathy and complexity. (0+ / 0-)

        Intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

        One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

        •  'Intending' is an interesting choice (0+ / 0-)

          of words.  

          First, let me state that harming innocent people is wrong.  I doubt there's much debate about that, and I doubt that anyone in the Israeli government would disagree, either.  (There are some Kachniks in Israel, but they aren't in the government).

          But when it comes to intent.  Well, if Israel really INTENDED to harm as many Lebanese as possible, do you think there would be hundreds dead? NO.  There would be many thousands.  

          Again, I am not condoning what Israel is doing.  

          Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

          by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:20:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm inclined to agree with you, but (0+ / 0-)

            it's more complicated.

            I'm headed for bed, so please forgive me if I merely link to To people of good will and reprint this:

            The fact that the Israel Defense Force (IDF), like any responsible military establishment, develops contingency plans for various possible eventualities, does not mean, or begin to prove, that either Israel’s civilian leadership or that of the IDF itself has looking for an excuse to put a contingency plan regarding Hizbollah into operation.  Indeed, the IDF would have been acting irresponsibly were it not to have developed one or more contingency plans against the possibility, which as we’ve seen actually occurred, that an accumulation of attacks by Hizbollah on Israel, or any particular attack on Israel would cause Israel’s civilian leadership to conclude that a substantial response was needed.

            By itself, in other words, the existence of the contingency plan does not even provide any evidence of a premeditated attack on Lebanon rather than Israel preparing itself to defend itself against Hizbollah.

            This is not to say that every aspect of Israel’s current operation ought to be endorsed uncritically.  For example, I share the concerns recently expressed by a number of Ministers and Members of Knesset, both from within the coalition, including Kadima, and Meretz-Yachad, about anything more than a very modest use of ground forces in Lebanon.

            But neither should we ignore the fact that Israel is responding to violations of international law by both Hizbollah and Lebanon under both the Fifth Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention, including the Protocol Additional, which supplements, but does not abridge, the convention itself.

            To begin with, of course, Hizbollah violated international law by attacking across the international border between Lebanon and Israel.  We must not forget (1) that the United Nations itself certified to Israel’s complete withdrawal, in 2000, behind the international border separating it from Lebanon, and (2) that UN Security Council Resolution 1559, (pdf) adopted in 2004, expressly called for, in addition to Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon:

            the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias; [and] . . . . the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over
            all Lebanese territory[.]

            Further, by expressly prohibiting the use of civilians as a shield against attack, Art. 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention  prohibits Hizbollah’s strategy of locating its force and weapons amongst civilians:

            The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

            See also, e.g., Arts. 48 and 51(2) of  The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1).

            Art. 51(2) of the Protocol distinguishes between attacks on military objectives that also cause harm to civilians, which in principle are permitted, and attacks directed at civilians as such:

            The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

            Hizbollah also is in violation of Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907 (the Fifth Hague Convention).  Under Art. 2:

            Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

            And under Art. 4:

            Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

            Thus, assuming for purposes of discussion that Lebanon were a neutral power, Hizbollah would be in violation of Arts. 2 and 4 of the Fifth Hague Convention.  If Lebanon were not a neutral power, of course, it violated these articles by permitting Hizbollah to move troops and munitions throughout southern Lebanon and points north, and by allowing Hizbollah to maintain and recruit an armed force.

            More than that, and in addition to violating UNSCR 1559, were Lebanon a neutral it also would be in violation of the Fifth Hague Convention simply by permitting, or failing to take action against, Hizbollah’s conduct. Art. 5 provides:

            A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.  It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

            Returning to Israeli conduct again, I conclude by noting that its actions cannot be evaluated simply going by “body count.”   The necessary of the governing proportionality test is not either the ratio or absolute number of Israeli and Lebanese civilian casualties, but rather a careful weighing of the importance of Israel’s objectives and the magnitude of the threats it faces.   As Michael Walzer argues (registration possibly required):

            Israel's goal is to prevent future raids, as well as to rescue the soldiers, so proportionality must be measured not only against what Hamas and Hezbollah have already done, but also against what they are (and what they say they are) trying to do.

            The most important Israeli goal in both the north and the south is to prevent rocket attacks on its civilian population, and, here, its response clearly meets the requirements of necessity. The first purpose of any state is to defend the lives of its citizens; no state can tolerate random rocket attacks on its cities and towns. Some 700 rockets have been fired from northern Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal a year ago--imagine the U.S. response if a similar number were fired at Buffalo and Detroit from some Canadian no-man's-land. It doesn't matter that, so far, the Gazan rockets have done minimal damage; the intention every time one is fired is to hit a home or a school, and, sooner or later, that intention will be realized. Israel has waited a long time for the Palestinian Authority and the Lebanese government to deal with the rocket fire from Gaza and the rocket build-up on the Lebanese border. In the latter case, it has also waited for the United Nations, which has a force in southern Lebanon that is mandated to "restore international peace and security" but has nonetheless watched the positioning of thousands of rockets and has done nothing. A couple of years ago, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for the disarming of Hezbollah; its troops, presumably, have noticed that this didn't happen. Now Israel has rightly decided that it has no choice except to take out the rockets itself.

    •  I believe Fred distinguishes between diaries and (0+ / 0-)

      comments critical of particular Israel policies and those that suggest an animus against Israel itself.  I know I do, and that's what I mean about "anti-Israel."

    •  That WHOOSHING sound (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FredFred

      is the entire point of this diary zooming past a few miles above your head.

      The ONLY thing the Republicans are successful in is marketing their talking points to the public.

      by jeffwass on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 08:51:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, Fred (9+ / 0-)

    for writing the diary I wish I was able to write.

    (-7.25,-5.95) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." -Edward R. Murrow

    by adamschloss on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:07:42 PM PDT

  •  i agree with much you have said (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cecil vortex, FredFred, dougymi

    and i would add that as long as we are engaged in these internecine i/p fights, we are ingoring the larger issue- defeating the repugs and regaining a majority in one or both houses. this is a distraction, and karl rove is loving it.

  •  You mix highly offensive and borderline (35+ / 0-)

    anitsemitic material in with that with which you merely disagree. For instance: is Israel creating more terrrorists? I think a great many people here and elsewhere would agree that it is. That is not anti Israel. It is anti this policy, anti this destruction in Lebanon.

    •  That's true. . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      michael1104, Jay Elias

      . . . but so does everyone else.  There's no distinction between the rational criticism and the "Goebbels like jackbooted thug" language, at least not on the part of most commenters.

      Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

      by LarryInNYC on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:24:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you want to condition criticism (5+ / 0-)

        to what you find acceptable?

        "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

        by Euroliberal on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:48:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bronte17, Democritus

          we want rationality.

          (-7.25,-5.95) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." -Edward R. Murrow

          by adamschloss on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:52:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  then (28+ / 0-)

            stop projecting, using loaded words like "hate", "anti-semitic" and all kinds of adjectives to describe political differences.

            "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

            by Euroliberal on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:03:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well then call for a cease fire. (41+ / 0-)

            I am sorry, but there is a series of events here that are playing out and people can see them.  You can't tell people to just abandon their own personal beliefs about the value of a human life because of a blind loyalty that you insist that they have.  This "you are either with us or against us" attitude is no more welcome in my mind from you than it is from President Bush.  

            I think Israel is in the process of killing itself and you know what I am paying attention and calling for a cease fire because I don't want to see the demise of that state.  I am criticizing because I see a neconservative doctrine taking hold in Israel that I have witnessed in this country taking hold, and I don't wish that fate on anyone.  

            I am pissed because I am your friend and I care.  But you know what?  If you insist that I must view every action of the State of Israel as absolutely right and just, I will walk away.  If you want to draw a line in the sand that is so extreme as to suggest that I only criticize something in private and adhere to this doctrine:

            when we're in public nobody talks smack about our family and we'll stick up for them

            then you are crazy.  Grow up.  You know what I learned from the lessons of the Holocaust as a woman of Germanic descent?  I learned that you don't EVER sit by quietly while people are being killed.  You NEVER EVER take killing for granted or write it off as something that is necessary or a solution.  That is what I freakin' learned from the Holocaust.

            How dare you.  How dare you even so much as imply that my misgivings about how this conflict is being handled even remotely implies some sort of racism or bigotry on my part.  I will never be bullied into agreeing to war.  That will never happen.  I have already been called unamerican because I opposed the Iraq War.  Now I am antisemetic or anti-Israel?  Bullshit.  I will not tolerate that kind of accusation.  Not at all.  You can call me anything you want, but I will never give up my beliefs in humanitarianism.

            •  Indeed. (2+ / 0-)

              "...history is a tragedy not a melodrama" - I.F. Stone

              by bigchin on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:42:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Who? (0+ / 0-)

              I have already been called unamerican because I opposed the Iraq War.  Now I am antisemetic or anti-Israel?  Bullshit.  I will not tolerate that kind of accusation.  Not at all.  You can call me anything you want, but I will never give up my beliefs in humanitarianism.

              Who here called you any of these things? The diarist was speaking in generalities, and he was spot on.

              W's First Veto: not for tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel spending and earmarks, or civil liberties violations, but for stem cell research.

              by Red Sox on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:45:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  That deserves a thousand recs. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              Thank you.

            •  Since 2000, when Israel fully withdrew from (0+ / 0-)

              Lebanon (as certified by the UN), Hezbollah has been trying, and sometimes succeeding, to kill Jews.  Without regard to your descent, I'd like to know what you've done about that does not constitute idly sitting by.

              One problem I have, and I'm someone who from the beginning of the settlements folly has opposed them and many other particular Israeli government policies, is the lack of empathy for Israelis and the intolerance of complexity too many comments betray.

              For example, intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

              One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

              •  This may or may not make any sense to you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18

                but: To Kill a Mockingbird.

                That is all I have to say at this moment that is not frought with anger born from my utter despair and disgust at this moment.

              •  I meant to reply to the bottom two paragraphs (0+ / 0-)

                of this comment, but got caught up and scrolled past the first four renditions above, so I'm glad you've repeated it here.  Again.

                Yes, that was snarky and small, so I apologize for that, but honestly?  Constant reptition of a thoughtful, valuable comment sort of takes away from its meaning.  It starts to feel like so much mindless dreck--which it was not.

                In any event, I think it unlikely that the majority of posters on dailyKos don't understand, or consider, the complexities of Israeli policies.  For all that Israel is a unique country among the world--both in its formation and its place in so many minds and hearts--its military conduct is little different than that of any other country at war.  Israel has different movitivations for what it does, and certainly faces threats the likes of which most people in the world cannot relate to on a daily basis.  Yet Israel at war is America at war is France at war is China at war.

                War causes civilian casualities.  War causes "collateral damage".  War usually involves fuckups of major proportions on all sides.  War means a lot of people die.  These things are not unique to Israel, and they are not something most intelligent people ignore when discussing "this (insert military action here) is good", or "this (insert military action here) is bad".  They are part and parcel of the whole.  Did George Bush order our military to bomb Saddam Hussein's palaces and kill 500 people?  That would be bad--really, really bad.   Did the Dalai Lama  order our military to bomb Osama bin Laden and a guy riding his bike past got killed?  That's bad, but not as bad as it could have been.

                I think what you're failing to consider, in telling us what we fail to consider, is that it's not ISRAEL, generally, that people condemn here.  It's the loss of life.  And the loss of life is bad, no matter whether it's the crazy homeless guy on the corner walking into traffic or a university cafeteria destroyed by a suicide bomber or an apartment building taken out by a jet-fired missle.

                It doesn't matter what the intent equation is.  Loss of life is bad, therefore conduct leading to loss of life is to be avoided.  If you intended to kill someone, clearly that's worse.  

                To some ways of thinking, which are equally valid with any other, anything that causes loss of life is a bad thing and should be avoided--no matter who you are, or why you're doing it.

                •  I appreciate the genuineness of your sentiments (0+ / 0-)

                  and thank you for your considerate comments.  In that spirit, I hope you will not take amiss the following response.

                  1. You well may be right that comments would be equally strong if the party with greater military power, therefore, inflicting the greater damage, were France or China or the United States.  Nevertheless:
                  • The only things we readers have to go by are the words and tone an author chooses to use.  I hope you will agree that much -- I'm not trying to estimate how much -- of the comments directed at Israel are very sharp indeed and devoid of anything that encourages belief that the poster has any empathy for Israelis or has taken into account the complexities that concern me and that you recognize.
                  • Other countries currently are doing, or rather recently have done, much worse than whatever Israel is doing in Lebanon, but those conflicts have not occasioned anything resembling the sustained diarying and sharp comments directed against Israel.  One example is the Sudanese government's war against Darfur.
                  1. I think you are correct in identifying the underlying feeling of many critical posters as, if I understand you correctly, revulsion against the loss of human life as such, which makes Israel the more obvious object of criticism because it has inflicted more damage than Hizbollah (though not for Hizbollah's want of trying).  But I have a serious problem with this emotional response.
                  • Someone, I wish I could remember who, wrote that it's always the victims of aggression who cause wars because if they surrendered there would be no war.  The point is that, in the first instance, the responsibility for the destruction of warfare falls on the party that precipitates the fighting:  either by attacking or taking threatening actions that legitimate a defensive, preemptive strike.
                  • Even in the second instance, responsibility for civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure does not necessarily belong to the party whose forces literally "cause" it.  The reason is that a party to a conflict has a moral and international legal obligation not to use protected persons as a shield, not to locate its forces, materiel, etc., among civilians.  In other words, as apparently is the case, Hizbollah locates rockets it uses to strike at Israel amongst and near civilian, then, subject to an exception discussed in the next sentence, it is Hizbollah, not Israel, that bears responsibility for all the damage caused by an Israeli attack directed solely at the legitimate military target.  The exception is that, as is true of any military operation, Israel bears the responsibility for trying to make sure that it tries to minimize collateral damage and that the reasonably foreseeable risk of collateral damage, especially harm to protected persons (basically, civilians), is proportional to the legitimate military objectives (not to the casus belli, to the legitimate military objectives).
                  • My contention is that, simply looking at the fact of harm to civilians does not tell us how much responsibility, if any, Israel bears for that harm because what we need, and do not yet have, is evidence that would allow us adequately to evaluate each instance under inquiry.  And we should bear in mind that, even if it turns out that in particular instances Israel may have made the wrong calculations and acted disproportionately that does not wash away Hizbollah's responsibility for creating the situation in which, to strike at legitimate military targets Israel, Israel had to calculate, and sometimes get wrong, the risk to civilians and the proportionality of the action.
                  1. Finally, in this perhaps overlong comment, I want to add that I write as someone who, in addition to opposing the settlements from the outset, also actively opposed the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and was bitterly critical of each Likud and "national unity" government.  If one can understand and accept these facts, it may
                  • give one pause before simply writing off my comments as those of a blind supporter of Israel; and
                  • at least lead to some introspection about the kinds of posts that someone like me finds troubling.
      •  aoeu (17+ / 0-)

        It may be hard to stay rational when you're seeing pictures of the charred remains of children, pictures of whole city blocks that have been flattened, and reports of (and calls for) twenty years' worth of progress being undone--and you know that the killing and destruction is continuing with the support of our elected officials.

        I agree that in many cases language has been used that is over the top. But this is a very emotional time (WWIII is being proposed) and it's going to bring out base reactions.

        Let's try to give people the benefit of the doubt when we have doubt. Let's not forget that we're pretty much all liberals, and we all stand up for universal human rights, the rule of law, etc. We are all liberals who stand up for the rights of the disadvantaged with as much passion as the rights of the rich and powerful.

        Some of us may see Israel and the people she claims to offer safehaven to as disadvantaged, others may see the Palestinians and the Lebanese people as disadvantaged. Some of us may see the government of Israel violating human rights and international law, others may see the governments of Palestine and Lebanon violating human rights and international law.

        In any case, we pretty much all share the same values and the same goals--let's not forget that. If your concern is creating or maintaining a society in which no minority is persecuted, be they Jewish, Muslim, Homosexual, Romani, African American, Hispanic, etc.--a society in which the powerful are not free to abuse the rights of the weak--then you most certainly should be a liberal.

        You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

        by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:53:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right, which is exactly why diaries with photos (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          another American, quotemstr

          like those disgust me- it is pure emotional manipulationed designed to make you stop thinking rationally and start thinking 'with the gut' as Colbert would say.

          Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

          by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:43:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can see that (7+ / 0-)

            but at the same time they are photographic evidence of what is really, truthfully happening. So it is the reality that is causing the emotional reaction, not manipulative, deceptive propaganda.

            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:47:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't the photos that disgust me, it is (7+ / 0-)

            loss of life that the camera sometimes captures. Some don't need to see pictures to understand the horror of war, some do. If pictures of blown-up bodies offend us, let's not create them.

            Why manipulate the truth by not showing people the horrible results of war, thereby making it easier to support?

            Anyone who supports war as a means of resolving problems should have the stomach to look at what it does. Europeans and other nations see plenty of pictures. Only Americans are protected from the truth by a lying administration and a complicit media.

            Why not have an emotional reaction to war?  Are those who support it so sensitive they might be offended if they are exposed to the truth? Let's NOT protect warmongers!  

            The Bush administration has done a great job of hiding the bodies ~ one reason why he got so much support for the war in Iraq. If pictures could stop wars, let's show millions of them.

            I don't get this reaction at all. If we don't look it didn't happen? Whether we see pictures or not, it happened. We contribute to this, the least we can do is have the guts to look at what we contribute to.

            I do understand being ashamed of what our government supports and does. But I don't think we should help them to hide the evidence, bodies, or not count the dead, or sneak dead soldiers in in the dark of night ~ if your cause is noble, there is no need to hide anything, is there?

          •  You can always go back to watching Faux and CNN (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            if you don't like photos here.  They will make sure you only see what AIPAC thinks you should see.  But meanwhile the rest of the world is seeing those photos and lots more like them, and listening to Bush's mumbling and Condi's sanctimonious blather, and they are drawing their own  conclusions.

        •  One of the diaries today... (6+ / 0-)

          posted several shots of charred Palestinian/Lebanese children, and the one shot of the Israelis was some girls writing something on a (military) rocket.

          No pictures of the Israeli civilian dead, no pictures of the Israeli houses leveled, no pictures of the Israelis marching for peace.  No pictures of Hezbollah folks firing rockets at the Israelis, no pictures of suicide bombers held up as martyrs, etc., etc.

          So the photo evidence was very compelling - and ridiculously one-sided.

          As I said in the diary, if we can agree that each innocent civilian life has infinite value, does it matter the ratio between Lebanese and Israeli civilian deaths - can we not just say that both sides are taking obscenely high losses?  Does there have to be a right and a wrong here?  This isn't a black and white issue.

          -Fred

          Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
          -3.13 -6.05

          by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:44:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing is ever black or white. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18, flo58, gkn

            But there are distinct shades of gray.

            I agree, it would be useful to see photographs of the destruction caused by the Katyusha rockets in Israel. I have seen a few posted in diaries. Of course, the damage won't be on the same scale--and this is important, it helps us to figure out the various shades of gray.

            The suicide bombers don't seem to be an issue in the current conflict (thankfully).

            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:04:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  One-sided coverage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            I agree with you that the makeup of the photos (as you describe it--I haven't looked myself) in the diary you reference is unfairly one-sided.

            Would you agree that, by and large, the coverage in the mainstream media is significantly biased in favor of the actions of the Israeli government?

            When Jesus said, "Love your enemies," he probably meant don't kill them.

            by porktacos on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:11:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              Last week or maybe the week before, the Guardian had a great cover that showed an Israeli tank on the bottom and at the top had a Palestinian kid smiling next to a flag with a caption that basically said one side wanted peace and the other wanted war.  So no, I'm not going to grant that the mainstream media is biased pro-Israel.  That said, I try to avoid the mainstream media because they make me sick.

              -Fred

              Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
              -3.13 -6.05

              by FredFred on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:22:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  FredFred, you go around here accusing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            people of bringing up the "Wacko theory" that the Mossad staged the kidnappings of the 2 reservists to justify all that has followed.

            I notice, tho, that in at least two diaries, you are the first one to bring this alleged "Wacko theory" up.  In other words, the diaries did nor mention this theory until you placed it into the discussion for the first time.

            Please point out to me some or all the diaries or comments where anyone other than you refers to the  claim that the Mossad did this.

            Hint 1: searching "Diaries and Stories" in the last three days yields only four hits on "Mossad," one of which is yours, two of which refers to a "Mossad secret plot to justify invasion" without suggesting they kidnapped their own soldiers, and one of which discusses the possibility (tongue in cheek) that Karl Rove works for the Mossad.

            Hint 2:  searching "Comments" for the last three days yields 18 comments with the word "Mossad."  Of these, only 4 refer to your alleged "Wacko theory."  TWO OF THEM ARE YOUR POSTS AND TWO ARE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR POSTS.

            Now it is possible that searching for "Mossad" does not hit because these vicious scheming posters could have used other words, like "Israeli intelligence" or "their own forces."

            So where are these diaries or comments in which it is suggested by someone other than yourself that the Mossad kidnapped the reservists?

            If you cannot or do not answer, the horse you rode in will be brought around front at dawn.

            TYVM.    

            Their real God is money-- Jesus just drives the armored car. © 2006 All Rights Reserved

            by oblomov on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:27:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Congratulations! (13+ / 0-)

    This is a great post and you have my full support.  I've noticed the same thing you have about the anti-Israel & anti-Semitic diatribes.  There is no reason why anyone who is progressive and liberal should be anti-Semitic and anti-Israel (which is virtually the same thing).  This is particularly true among liberal Democrats interested in seeing our Party retake control of Congress from the Rethugs.  In fact, the progrssive/liberal position should be emphatically pro-Israel, since just as Jewish Americans are overwhelmingly liberal and progressive, so are Israelis.  Also, on a side note, Jewish American liberal Democrats would be no more likely to be supporting Joe Lieberman than would non-Jewish liberal Democrats.  His support of Israel is equaled by Ned Lamont, but his support of the awful Bush regime disqualifies him from liberal support.

    •  Three Things (53+ / 0-)

      I see three things being conflated in your comments:

      • Support for Israel
      • Support for Jewish Americans
      • Support for Israel's current military action in Lebanon

      Is it not possible to have different opinions on these three things?

      For example, I think that the State of Israel is a good idea.  I certainly like my fellow Americans who are of a Jewish background.  However ...

      I really think that the Lebanon action is going to end in tears, not just for Israel but eventually for us, and I have grave concerns regarding the humanitarian aspects of what is going on over there, specifically, the targeting of civilian areas and infrastructure by the Israeli army and the resulting injuries and loss of life.

      Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006.

      by bink on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:20:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wait (24+ / 0-)

      There is no reason why anyone who is progressive and liberal should be anti-Semitic and anti-Israel (which is virtually the same thing).  

      No offense, but thats just plain Rove/ Faux News style framing of an issue IMHO.

      Karl (Rove) is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. -Larry Johnson

      by McGirk on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:48:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here is your problem... (43+ / 0-)

      "There is no reason why anyone who is progressive and liberal should be anti-Semitic and anti-Israel (which is virtually the same thing)."

      Saying that an anti-Israeli attitude is essentially just anti-semitism is why you have such a hard time with other people's views on what is going on - you are not objective enough to make an honest assessment of the situation. If you cannot distinguish criticism of a right-wing government's actions from racial intolerence, you really need to do some soul searching to see just what your values are.

      I am sickened by the way some choose to slander those that criticise Israel with this horrible slur of anti-semitism.  If you have an arguement to make - make it.  Do not simply hide behind unjustified insults and expect to win many supporters.  The impact of that particular pejorative has lost its value due to blatant over use in situations that have almost nothing to do with Judaism.  That you cannot seperate the Israel government from Judaism is YOUR PROBLEM.

      Israel bears just as much responsibility for the current crisis, and if your biases do not allow you to even consider this, than it is time to admit to yourself that you do not have an honest perspective.  If you cannot see how wanton shelling and bombing of civilians reflects poorly on the morality of Israel, there is little that can be said I guess.  If you assume that everything Israel claims must be 100% accurate and true, well, there is little point in talking to you, now is there?

      I will no longer allow myself to be bullied into silence just because a few misguided souls feel it is their duty to slander anyone that speaks ill of the ACTIONS that Israel takes.  

      Israel is only making things worse.  They are only increasing the violence and hatred.  Each innocent life they take in this absurd retaliation is just another reason for the other side to adopt the same tactics and show no respect for Israeli lives.  If you blindly support what Israel is doing now, you are not really acting in Israel's best interests.

      I hope this helps give some perspective on the attitudes you are seeing.

      •  'a right wing's government's actions' (0+ / 0-)

        Actually, it's a left-wing or center-left government under Olmert.

        In Israel, I believe any government would have to respond in this way, or else be instantly replaced by a different government (parliamentary system).

        •  Olmert and Bush are peas in a pod (9+ / 0-)

          Both believe:

          • international law does not apply to them
          • they can ignore UN resolutions they do not like
          • only people for lesser countries can commit war crimes
          • bad guys (bad being solely determined their say so) can be indefinately detained
          • civilians they kill in the their military campaigns are irrelevant colateral damage
          • their two countries have an unlimited right to start preemptive wars but no other country does
          • they get to decide to what weapons countries they do like can have
          • Anyone who questions them is a terrorist sympathizer

          I really do not understand how one can rationally be a Democrat, oppose Bush and but then support Olmert.  In the long those of us who believe in the UN, multilaterism and international law are going to have to be in a different politcal party than those who support the Bush/Olmert doctrine.

          •  Exactly, exactly, . . . (8+ / 0-)

            That is exactly what I think. Don't forget those bad guys may or may not have been tortured (I think that was in a MB diary recently) and are held indefinitely without charge. The Neocons and the Likud/Kadima parties of Israel are definitely playing by the same rulebook.

            Israel holds about 9,000 Palestinian prisoners. One thousand of them are detained without charge or trial, and often exist in a Kafkaesque world of having to prove their innocence without ever being told what it is they are accused of. Most of the remaining prisoners were tried by military courts that consider secret evidence.

            You cannot depend upon American institutions to function without pressure. --MLK Jr.

            by Opakapaka on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:29:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  well said (8+ / 0-)

        That you cannot seperate the Israel government from Judaism is YOUR PROBLEM.

        "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire

        by Euroliberal on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:15:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Israelis might be overwhelmingly... (3+ / 0-)

      liberal or progressive but that doesn't make their government's actions any more defensible. If it does somehow, then why don't you support the Bush administration the same way you're defending the Israeli one? Anti-Semitic is NOT the same thing as anti-bad Israeli government policy (which is also NOT anti-Israel).

    •  Excuse me? (4+ / 0-)

      There is no reason why anyone who is progressive and liberal should be anti-Semitic and anti-Israel (which is virtually the same thing).

      Hmmm.  How does the above statement sound with a couple of [minor] substitutions?

      There is no reason why anyone who is progressive and liberal should be anti-Bush and pro-terrorist (which is virtually the same thing).

      I am neither Jewish nor Israeli (and I am capable of comprehending the difference).  I am your basic generically-Protestant American.  I am anti-Bush with a vengeance and do not feel any obligation to refrain from questioning and criticizing the policies and actions of the Bush Administration. In doing so, I am not undermining my country or being unpatriotic - quite the contrary.

      But by your logic, I'm supposed to refrain from questioning and criticizing the policies and actions of the government of Israel -- a country I'm not even a citizen of -- on pain of being branded anti-Semitic?

      Get.  A.  Grip.

      Impeach the Enemy-Combatant-in-Chief Already

      by Mehitabel9 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:04:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Being critical of Israel is NOT the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Michigan Paul

      thing as being antisemitic.  We need to be care in equating being "anti-Israel" with being antisemitic because many people think criticism of particular Israeli policies in a context of general, however weak, support for Israel's continued existence, counts as being "anti-Israel."  If that's what's meant, however, then, IMHO, it's not antisemitism.  But too often what's written omits anthing that suggests that context and even includes language that suggests a complete lack of empathy or understanding for Israel.  That promotes suspicions of antisemitism, especially because it's so easy to negate them in advance by careful writing.

      One problem I have, and I'm someone who from the beginning of the settlements folly has opposed them and many other particular Israeli government policies, is the lack of empathy for Israelis and the intolerance of complexity too many comments betray.

      For example, intending to harm civilians is wrong.  Intending to attack military targets and also harming civilians may be right or wrong according to circumstances that have to do with the importance of the objectives, the degree of risk before the fact to civilians, the possibility of realizing one's legitimate objectives through other means that do not unreasonably increase the risk to one's own side.

      One reason why what appear to some, or are called, criticisms of particular Israeli actions are understood differently by others is the general non-recognition of this complexity.  Israeli conduct generally is being condemned without consideration of these vital factors.  My own view is that we don't yet have the evidence needed to make judgments.  Hence, while sensitivity to the possibility of wrongdoing is important, harping on  it as though it were a proven fact and generally characteristic of Israeli conduct suggests a deeper animus, especially when one gets flamed for pointing out these complexities.

  •  Try this perspective on for size: (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FredFred, House, Arken, Sanuk, Dave the Rave

    Here's how to best understand all sides. It's a clean, fresh and accurate way to see all sides of any conflict.
    The best kept secret in all civilizations is that we are animals! We are medium-sized mammals, who just happen to have evolved the ability and the need to construct vast symbolic systems to define ourselves, and now we can't see our way out of our own systems, so we fight each other to the death to defend them. Hoisted on our own petards! Children want to help and be a part of the family, and grownups want to help and be a part of their culture. They all just want acceptance and basic dignity, but our daily lives are dominated by humans acting badly toward one another to defend their cultures while ignoring and trampling the natural wonders that are the real foundations of our own lives. Let's hear some support for animal rights.

    •  Exactly my sentiment, although I would have said- (5+ / 0-)

      that it is very easy to frequently forget that people who disagree with us, even disagree with us on fundamental levels, are still human beings. They still are all 99.999% identical to you on the most basic genetic level.

      It's very easy to look at Israelis or Palestinians or Hezbollah or any group that uses violence to get their way or make a point as less than human, but the fact is that all of them are all too human.

      I frequently hear arguments about Israel's right or Palestine's right to exist. I don't care about those things. I care about the right of Israelis and Palestinians to exist. That's much more important.

      Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

      by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:46:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary, although I disagree (17+ / 0-)

    with some parts of it.  You're right when you say there's an uncomfortable jumble of diaries that are legitimately critical of the government and diaries that are merely anti-Semitic, but I think you're jumbling them as well.  

    For example: showing us the number of Israel-criticizing diaries is no more proof of an anti-Israel bent than showing the number of diaries critical of U.S. policy in Iraq is proof of an anti-American bent.  I think the natural tendency here is to sympathize with the underdog and expect more of our allies, which may explain part of that unevenness of coverage.  But even the constantly-accused-of-anti-Semitism Juan Cole has called the leader of Hezbollah 'insane' and their actions 'war crimes,' so there's definitely enough guilt to go around.

    And now my own comment is jumbling things as well.  I guess it's a natural reaction when discussing this topic, which helps explain some of the flame wars.

    But, I'm glad you posted this diary, and your evenness of tone is admirable.  Much appreciated insight.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:17:54 PM PDT

    •  Sorry if unclear (4+ / 0-)

      The big list of diaries was intended to be a list of diaries that criticize Israel in some way (and exclusively criticize us or Israel, vs. the diaries that criticized both Israel and the Hamas/Hezbollah/Palestinians/etc.)  Was not in any way trying to imply that all of the diaries criticizing Israel were anti-Semitic - they run the gamut.

      Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
      -3.13 -6.05

      by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:20:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry if I implied that - (9+ / 0-)

        What I meant was simply that the list wasn't necessarily a good indicator of diarists' feelings towards Israel, just as the huge spate of "What America is doing wrong in Iraq" diaries certainly don't imply anti-Americanism, although I admit fully that those borders can be fuzzy.  

        But, I did much enjoy reading this diary, so thank you again.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:23:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Lots of issues (7+ / 0-)

        I have lots of concerns with the issues you raise -- some of which are mentioned above by others.  I think Israeli policy (as opposed to Israel, itself) is taking it on the chin because it is bombing and killing hundreds of innocent civilians.  It is the same with criticism of the US when it kills innocent civilians in Iraq or elsewhere.  Israel has superior military might and appears to be using it indiscriminately.  As for Hezbollah -- I don't waste my breath critcizing them because imo it goes without saying that their tactics are wrong.  That would not make a very interesting diary.

        Israel (not Jews) has a lot to answer for.  There are millions under Israeli control who have no right to affect policy.  I am talking here about Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza.  They have no vote in Israel, so don't tell me what a great democracy Israel is.  Millions of Palestinians will be born and die in refugee camps.  How would you feel about that?  

        I realize it is a complicated issue, but there is a lot to criticize Israel for short of calling for the end of the Jewish state -- which, by the way, I have never personally seen advocated here.  You should consider reading those diaries instead of passing over them.  It may be uncomfortable for you -- but the truth is often uncomfortable.  (I remember crying with shame after I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and found out how the country I loved killed Native Americans.)  If the diarists are wrong, you can comment and correct them.

        Lastly, one definitely needs thick skin here sometimes.  This is a group of people which cares deeply about events and has definite, strongly-held opinions.  You will find anti-semites just as you will find racists and misogynists.  It is a big group, but most of us are none of those things -- or at least not consciously so.  

        When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

        by flo58 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:07:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's very reassuring... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pb, celticshel, anonymousredvest18

        ...to read that. I honestly thought you'd lumped 'em all together and painted them with the same brush.

        Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

        by odum on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:35:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You were insufficiently clear on precisely this (5+ / 0-)

        point.  Much of the diary is a solid, rational, impassioned argument to see both sides of the story -- especially yours.  However, in jumbling all those diaries the way you did, you definitely mixed the "anti-semitic" with the "critical of Israel" in a way that -- intentionally or not -- muddied the issue.

        As an Iraqi-American academic born and raised in New Orleans, this voter is not pleased.

        by naltikriti on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:01:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My attitude ... (8+ / 0-)

        ... is twofold.

        First of all, I am not Hezbollah.  Hezbollah is not me.  I have never funded Hezbollah, I have never met anyone who has funded Hezbollah, and I would personally stop talking to anyone who did.

        By contrast, my tax dollars fund Israeli bombs.  I know plenty of people -- nice people, friends, liberals -- who support Israel whole-heartedly.  The Jewish Community Center my parents belong to (we're not Jewish, but they do have a nice pool) has children write letters to Israeli soldiers.  So I feel like I have far more ties to Israel than to Hezbollah or other Islamic terrorists.

        Second of all, at some level (and here I apologize -- this is racism, and I try not to think this way, but here it is), when I hear about atrocities committed by Islamic groups, I see Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations as barbarians.  They have a completely different value system from our own.  They think of women as second-class citizens.  They praise people for becoming martyrs.  They're nothing like Americans.  Israelis, on the other hand, are members of the First World.  They view women as equals, they have ties to the US, they have a relatively similar value system, they're a democracy, and -- if you want to get down to it -- they are highly influenced by European culture.  They're one of us.  And as such, I expect a whole lot better of them.

        And I'm not seeing it, and that frusterates and confuses me.

        So do I hold Israel to higher standards?  Yes, of course.  They should know better.  Being a democracy, being a member of the First World, being one of "us" -- that doesn't mean you'll get my unconditional support.

        You say that Israel is like a family member, and you won't put up with people attacking family members.  But for me, at least personally, it's almost the opposite.  If one of my brothers were to steal something, or to beat a kid up in school, I wouldn't stick up for him.  I wouldn't defend him.  I would be ashamed of him and for him, because it reflects badly on my family.  They were raised better than that, and they should show it.  And if that means they get threatened or treated badly themselves, so be it.

        I'm sorry if this strikes you as anti-Semetic.  I don't mean it to be.  But I do have higher standards for Israel -- and it's not because I'm anti-Semetic.  It's because they -- like us -- should know better.

  •  I think you're missing a dimension in this (10+ / 0-)

    I object to the amount of control Israel seems to have over my government not because of AIPAC especially, after all they're a lobbying group hired to do a good job for their client.  My objection is more related to the involvement of the American religious right. Those are the theocrats that we should fear and now they've come down solidly on the side of Israel. They don't want moderation, they just want Arabs killed. The religious right doesn't care that there may be christian arabs killed.  They just want blood. That's their motivation as expressed by the Godly types like coulter and the rapture right.  That's what I object to.  That's the dimension that you might have missed in all the rhetoric about Israel in here.  

    "Facts are stupid things"-- Ronald Reagan 1988

    by dougymi on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:18:13 PM PDT

  •  Israel's current policies are self-destructive (49+ / 1-)

    They are racist and immoral.  Since the Israeli military is more powerful than the militaries of the entire region combined, and since that military is largely paid for from my tax dollars, I have a right and an obligation to speak out.

    I have a couple of crazy, alcoholic relatives.  If they went on a homocidal rampage, I would be the first person to call 911.  If Israel is family to you, I suggest you stage an intervention.

    Hizbollah and Hamas can only exist in the world rightwing Israelis have created.  A fair, internationally supervised, two-state outcome is the only solution.  No occupation, no settlements, no right of return.  Period.

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:23:05 PM PDT

    •  Democritus, my first troll rating in 3 years (14+ / 0-)

      Care to explain yourself?  I am about as far from a troll as you can get.

      Read the faq on troll rating, my friend.

      www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

      by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:27:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good post (6+ / 0-)

      but no right of return for whom?

      The Palestinians who actually lived there (or whose parents and grandparents actually lived) and are now crowded into refugee camps, or people from, say, my neighborhood in Brooklyn, NY who happen to be Jewish but are descendents of people from Poland and the Ukraine?

      I would rather vote for what I want and lose, than vote for what I don't want and win. Eugene Debs

      by tgs1952 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:34:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A contiguous, viable state of Palestine (10+ / 0-)

        in exchange for the right of return.

        I would prefer to see a democratic, vibrant, integrated, multi-ethic state.  But that is not going to happen in our lifetimes.

        Compromise and sacrifice on all sides for peace.

        www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

        by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:38:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you are missing the point (0+ / 0-)

          The single state solution has clearly failed. Besides, the "multi-ethnic state" you suggest almost defeats the purpose of having a Jewish-majority Israel in the first place, as the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank will soon outnumber Jewish Israelis.

          (-7.25,-5.95) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." -Edward R. Murrow

          by adamschloss on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:50:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It won't happen in our lifetimes (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tgs1952, odum, anonymousredvest18, Sanuk

            But it will eventually happen for the reasons you cite.  Perhaps future generations will evolve beyond feeling the need for a majority-Jewish, or majority-Arab state.

            And all our world will live as one?

            www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

            by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:56:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I Guess the Question Then (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, anonymousredvest18, inkadu

            is "why have a state based on an ethnic majority?"

            The historian, Tony Judt, has written a fine essay explaining why such a state is an anachronism:

            Israel: The Alternative.

            Why not consider the "unconsiderable"?

            I would rather vote for what I want and lose, than vote for what I don't want and win. Eugene Debs

            by tgs1952 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:20:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  answer.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TiaRachel
              is "why have a state based on an ethnic majority?"

              because that ethnic minority was nearly scoured off the face of the earth, and is currently surrounded by people who want to commit genocide against them.

              look, i'm not trying to be all 'the poor jews, boo hoo' but it's not like anyone else is going out of their way to help them out. they learned that lesson in WWII, which taught the jewish people one thing; when all is said and done, the only people they can really count on for survivial is themselves.

              but we dance to the music, and we dance

              by chopper on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:14:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  How do you get contiguous? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw

          If you assume that Gaza and at least some part of the West Bank are going to be the Palestinian state, how do you get them contiguous without slicing Israel in half?  One possibility is to have Gaza and the West Bank made into two different countries, but Gaza while it has enough people, and has access to the Med, doesn't have enough resources to sustain itself as a country really...

          -Fred

          Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
          -3.13 -6.05

          by FredFred on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:29:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Contiguous within the WB and GS. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw

          In 2002, Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, then President of Al Quds University, and Ami Ayalon, former commander of the Israeli Navy, former director of the Shin Bet, and now a Labor candidate for the Knesset, developed the People's Voice peace initiative.  It bears a family resemblence to the Clinton Parameters, and the Geneva Initiative.

          Statement of Principles:

          (Signed by Ami Ayalon & Sari Nusseibeh on July 27, 2002)

            1. Two states for two peoples: Both sides will declare that Palestine is the only state of the Palestinian people and Israel is the only state of the Jewish people.

            2. Borders: Permanent borders between the two states will be agreed upon on the basis of the June 4, 1967 lines, UN resolutions, and the Arab peace initiative (known as the Saudi initiative).

             * Border modifications will be based on an equitable and agreed-upon territorial exchange (1:1) in accordance with the vital needs of both sides, including security, territorial contiguity, and demographic considerations.
             * The Palestinian State will have a connection between its two geographic areas, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
             * After establishment of the agreed borders, no settlers will remain in the Palestinian State.

            3. Jerusalem: Jerusalem will be an open city, the capital of two states. Freedom of religion and full access to holy sites will be guaranteed to all.

             * Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will come under Palestinian sovereignty, Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty.
             * Neither side will exercise sovereignty over the holy places. The State of Palestine will be designated Guardian of al-Haram al-Sharif for the benefit of Muslims. Israel will be the Guardian of the Western Wall for the benefit of the Jewish people. The status quo on Christian holy site will be maintained. No excavation will take place in or underneath the holy sites without mutual consent.

            4. Right of return: Recognizing the suffering and the plight of the Palestinian refugees, the international community, Israel, and the Palestinian State will initiate and contribute to an international fund to compensate them.

             * Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel.
             * The international community will offer to compensate toward bettering the lot of those refugees willing to remain in their present country of residence, or who wish to immigrate to third-party countries.

            5. The Palestinian State will be demilitarized and the international community will guarantee> its security and independence.

            6. End of conflict: Upon the full implementation of these principles, all claims on both sides and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end.

    •  A reco to offset the troll-rate abuse. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Who knew? Chamonix. But did he tell us? NO!

      by 2lucky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:37:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'no right of return' (0+ / 0-)

      For the Jews or the Palestinians?

      The two-state option is the one Israel wants (with borders that are favorable to them, of course). It's the Palestinians, at least the moderate ones, who want a one-state solution (the non-moderate ones want to get rid of Israel entirely).

      Once you have two states, you can hardly dictate to a sovereign nation like Israel what their immigration policy should be, which is what the "right of return" for Jews would be in that case.

      •  Palestinians would trade right of return (4+ / 0-)

        to Israeli territory for a viable state.  Pain for everyone, but peace.

        www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

        by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:30:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would they? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran, gkn

          A mob destroyed the offices of a group that made the mistake of polling Palestinians on that very question.

          Perhaps they would agree to that, but they seem very reluctant to acknowledge that view in public for some reason.

        •  well they didn't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran

          What do you think stopped the Camp David accords?  Right of return was ALWAYS #1 on Arafat's list.  With Arafat gone, that might change, but that was always a sticking point.

        •  peace? (0+ / 0-)

          i'm sorry to pigeonhole palestinians, but do you honestly believe that giving them a viable state would bring about peace on its own? read a palestinian school book sometime, look at what their children are taught. i'm not talking about some hardcore out-there minority like 'well look at the way the children of settlers are taught' either, i'm talking about mainstream schools in the west bank.

          do you honestly believe that children who are brought up to believe that the jews are vile, satanic beasts who kidnap arab children to sacrifice them for their blood are going to keep a lasting peace with israel?

          but we dance to the music, and we dance

          by chopper on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:18:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When I went to elementary school (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            Little Black Sambo was in my reader, and I went to a "white" school.  Things can change, but you have to start somewhere.

            If the situation is truly hopeless, then the state of Israel will die a slow, demographic death.

            www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

            by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:46:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes (0+ / 0-)

              but were you taught to hate on black kids? that committing violence against them was god's will? that one day they'd all be 'pushed into the sea' and the 'black menace' would be forever extinguished?

              but we dance to the music, and we dance

              by chopper on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:19:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Blacks were not sufficiently human (0+ / 0-)

                to sit in the same classroom, or drink from the same water fountain.  Simply looking a white person in the eye could get a black man a beating, or worse.  Not taught to hate?  You must be very young...

                And I believe similar teachings can be found among Israeli ultras concerning Arabs.  What was Rabbi Kahane?  Chopped liver?  Who killed Rabin?

                There's enough hate on both sides. But I can testify from personal experience that change is possible.  And it's the only hope.

                www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

                by chuckvw on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:49:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  no i'm not very young. but i don't remember most public schools ever teaching kids that genocide against black kids is just awesome, and that the KKK is just the best.

                  And I believe similar teachings can be found among Israeli ultras concerning Arabs.  What was Rabbi Kahane?  Chopped liver?  Who killed Rabin?

                  yeah, ultra-orthodox settlers are kooky. and rabin was killed by a far-right nutjob. the difference is they also make up a very small percentage of israelis, who are on the whole quite secular.

                  the vast, vast majority of public schools in israel don't teach such things about the arabs. i mean, there are a few kids in america who learn racist, anti-semitic stuff in their schools and timmy mcveigh was a far-out christian nutjob. that doesn't mean that most schoolkids in the US are taught those things.

                  but the palestinian school books i'm talking about are in most every public school in the west bank. kids in the west bank are on the whole indoctrinated to hate on the jews and israel.

                  There's enough hate on both sides. But I can testify from personal experience that change is possible.  And it's the only hope.

                  well, i think that there's a lot more hate on one side than the other. i hate it when people use this cop-out to equivilate the situation, as if both sides are just as bad as the other.

                  but we dance to the music, and we dance

                  by chopper on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:41:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please. (9+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of Palestinians and Israelis who would dearly love a one-state, two-state, twelve-state or even a no-state solution if it meant an end to all of this.

        Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

        by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:48:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Heaven forbid (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radiowalla, FredFred, bronte17, TiaRachel

        Christians control 50% of the globe and Muslims and Buddhists control another 49%...HEAVEN FORBID a tiny piece of shitty land in the desert belong to the Jews. The "right of return" is nothing more than a political tool to gain Palestinean political control over Israel proper.

        (-2.38, -3.28) Independent thinker

        by TrueBlueDem on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:50:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have to wonder... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueDem

          I don't know if there are figures now, but how many Palestinians alive today were actually born on what is now Israeli soil (occupied territories not withstanding)... how much of a legitimate connection does the Palestinian population of 2006 have specifically with Israeli land?

          If I were a Palestinian, and I say that with the knowledge that I'm basically being an armchair captain here, that was born in the West Bank, I'd consider THAT to be my homeland, not some place my father or grandfather lived which is now part of Tel Aviv...

          Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

          by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:57:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Doesn't your logic imply... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18, lotlizard

            ...that Jews born in Russia (or Poland, or wherever) have no claim to any land in Israel? They should consider where they were born to be their homeland, not some bit of desert in the Middle East.

            There is some validity to the "ancestral homeland" feeling that needs to be taken into account, even though I don't buy the whole "G-d gave it to us" story. Otherwise you just displace people for one generation and you eliminate all claims, which doesn't seem reasonable.

            "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

            by Mad Dog Rackham on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:43:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not worth killing over. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gkn, Bhishma

              That's all I'm trying to say.

              Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

              by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:55:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  No, I think this misses something (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuckvw

              Jews have the right of return to Israel because that is Israeli policy.

              If there is two state solution, then Palestine could allow anyone they like to move to Palestine, just not to Israel.

              At least, I think that's what was meant

              Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

              by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:24:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18

                ...that's Israeli policy because they claimed the right of return to set up a country to establish that policy. It seems rather circular to me.

                But I've come to the conclusion that there is little logic or sense to the "historical" claims of any side there. It's all viewed through what they want to do now.

                "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

                by Mad Dog Rackham on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:53:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't understand what you are saying here.

                  Suppose there is a 2 state solution.
                  Then Israel can welcome whoever Israel wants to welcome, and Palestine can welocme whoever Palestine wants to welocme.  

                  What seems circular?

                  (Not meant as criticism, I just don't understand)

                  Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

                  by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:23:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The only reason... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    anonymousredvest18

                    ...there is a modern state of Israel is because Jews claimed a right of return and showed up to force the issue, leading to 1948.

                    So they have a right of return because they had a right of return.

                    "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." - Bertrand Russell

                    by Mad Dog Rackham on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:36:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18

          These people are treated like second-class citizens by their Arab neighbors. Now, on one hand, we can't let them all back in at once for the reasons you give. But wouldn't it be reasonable to let in, say, 300,000 a year?

    •  So? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel, soyinkafan

      Since the Israeli military is more powerful than the militaries of the entire region combined

      So what?  Does that, by definition, make Israel wrong for acting?

      I still can't fathom why NO ONE spends nearly as much time condemning Hamas and Hezbollah, both of whom PROVOKED this most recent conflict.

      •  Proportionality (3+ / 0-)

        Every "terror" attact in the past 20 years combined has probably used less munitions, killed and injured fewer people, and caused less infrastructure and proprty damage, created fewer refugees, and ruined fewer lives than the Israelis have in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

        •  In that case... (0+ / 0-)

          You argument leads to the wholly illogical conclusion that WWII (and WWI...and the American Revolution, amazingly enough), were by definition wrong.

          I asked this once before, but received no answers: what is the great virtue of "proportionality?"  

      •  You left out (4+ / 0-)

        and since that military is largely paid for from my tax dollars, I have a right and an obligation to speak out.

        No, the Israeli regime is not by definition wrong.  The occupation is wrong.  The destruction of Lebanon is wrong.

        As to the other matter, Israel has a chicken and Hizbollah has an egg.  It's time for the outside world to intervene comprehensively.  The principals are so wracked by grievance and fear that they will never resolve the situation themselves.

        www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

        by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:29:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've disagreed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chuckvw, celticshel

          With some of what you've written, and with some of this comment, but for the most part agree with, and appreciate it--particularly:

          As to the other matter, Israel has a chicken and Hizbollah has an egg.  It's time for the outside world to intervene comprehensively.  The principals are so wracked by grievance and fear that they will never resolve the situation themselves.

          Anyhow, I just like to find some common ground.

      •  if Israel had responded with (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, DSPS owl, Brother Love

        a commando raid on a Hezbollah HQ and either killed or kidnapped the people they found, there might have been one or two protest diaries, none of which would have hit the Rec list.

        Destroying Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and lots of civilians in the process to pressure Lebanon into expelling Hezbollah, something it is generally believed Lebanon simply doesn't have the military force to do is not a rational response, it's the sort of thing we condemn the Bushmen for doing.

        For every Israeli casualty, the Israelis have responded by killing a shitload of people.

        If Hezbollah were attacking with remotely comparable force, people would be condemning them just as loudly.

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:39:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Spot On! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, anonymousredvest18

      You framed the issue well.

    •  Chuckvw, you are correct (of course) (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, anonymousredvest18

      You make obvious points to anyone who cares to know the facts about how barbaric Israeli foreign policy is.
      Israel: get out of Palestine.
      Just...leave.

      "In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes." Chomsky

      by formernadervoter on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:30:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anti Israel (11+ / 0-)

    is not necessarely anti semite.
    I've been staying out of the diaries for just that reason.I am anti Israel war politics,but not anti semitic.

  •  Good diary (7+ / 0-)

    I deffinately recommend it.  I too, am a Jew and a Liberal and I too simply can't stand some of the B.S. comming from the anti-Israel people.

    I wish I could write a diary expressing how I feel as well as you did, it gets to the point that I almost want to leave dKos altogether because of the anti-Israel trolls, the anti-Israel diaries, and the sheer stupidity and blatant anti-Semetism that some of the posters on this issue promulgate.

    I sincerely hope that most of these anti-Israel attacks are from people who simply don't know the history or are truly ignorant of the facts on the ground.  That way we, from the much larger pro-Israel side of the Liberal movement, can educate them and teach them that over it's history Israel has been a huge friend of both the U.S. and the Liberal movement.

    As for the actual anti-Semites and "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's"...well, I hope that they eventually find whatever it is that they need to fill the hole in their hearts created by that hatred.

    Hello there Mr. NSA man. Yes we can see you. Stop that.

    by Democritus on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:34:21 PM PDT

    •  Opposing policy, supporting the State (9+ / 0-)

      I really think these two things get mixed up.  I think Israel's current policy is pretty awful, but I support the existence of the State of Israel.  I think most people around here would agree with me.    

      When you are going through hell, keep going! - Winston Churchill

      by flo58 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:18:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same thing with me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        odum, flo58

        I think the goverment of Israel is crazy.  But some people here seem to hate Israel itself.

      •  I would (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18

        I mean I support the United States, but I can't stand the current government.  I'm sure I'll bring down the wrath of some Palestinian sympathizer, but I like the idea of Israel.  Frankly, even if you don't the cat's out of the bag; we can't "unmake" the place.

        As Richard Cohen put it, (I swear he's actually making sense, don't hurt me): "Israel might be a mistake, but it is too late to do anything about that now.  What we need to do now is find a way for it to peacefully live with it's neighbors."

        I think the main problem is that both sides don't really want peace, deep down.  So while it may seem lazy, I'll say it: A pox on both their houses.  Until they learn to actually talk to each other and accept each other's existence, nothing will ever change over there.  Hamas and Hezbollah have WAY more to do in that department, but there's plenty of blame to go around.

        All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

        by Harkov311 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:02:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  sorry to say (9+ / 0-)

      While I can understand why some people would like to shut down the debate by running thru and crying 'anti-semetic wolf! anti-semetic wolf!', that will no longer work as it has in the past.  

      Those that have been paying attention are well aware that Israel is no innocent in the current crisis.  They have their full share of blame in the idiocy of what is going on.  Those that followed the details of the recent shelling of a beach in Gaza have good reason to take anything Israel says with a very large grain of salt.

      Tell me, why do you suppose the Israeli government expressed such outrage over the capture of their soldier near Gaza just 2 days after the IDF had gone in and captured a pair of palestinians they SUSPECTED of working with Hamas?  Do you feel it is acceptable for Israel to commit such an act, but not the Palestinians?  Just how many Palestians have been kidnapped over the last 3 years?  Dozens?  Hundreds?  How many are now being held, without being charged, in Israeli jails?

      I believe it is your blind, and one-sided, support of Israel that makes you see criticism of Israel as some emotional flaw in those that have taken the time to actually read up on the history of the area and know that Israel has done much to provoke those that attack it.

      Now, what was it you were saying about an anti-semtic wolf?

      •  Held without charge?????? (0+ / 0-)

        How many are now being held, without being charged, in Israeli jails?

        Pushing the limits of sanity I see.  You conflate the US tactics against terrorism with that of Israel.  The truth is that these individuals who are connected with Hamas (a terrorist organization) are arrested and charged in Israeli courts.  

        None of them are "kidnapped".  They are arrested for the criminals they are after they send suicide bombers (some of whom are children) into crowds and busses.

        Hello there Mr. NSA man. Yes we can see you. Stop that.

        by Democritus on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:51:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who doesn't know the facts on the ground? (6+ / 0-)

          Administrative Detention is imprisonment without charge or trial.  Israel uses this technique against those they suspect of terrorist activity.  Many of these prisoners are taken by force, assaulted, and dragged against their will across the border.  If this isn't kidnapping, than why is it when Hamas does the exact same thing?  Hypocrisy is the best word for this sort of double standard.

          Lets play cut&paste...

          "Administrative detention, which is arrest without charge or trial, has been used as a form of collective punishment by the Israeli military against Palestinians, and is illegal in this form under international law. During the period of March 2002 to October 2002, Israeli occupying forces arrested over 15,000 Palestinians during mass arrest campaigns, rounding up males in cities and villages between the ages of 15 to 45. In October 2002, there were over 1,050 Palestinians in administrative detention."

          "There are currently approximate 9,400 Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisoners, many without charge or trial under the Israeli policy of Administrative Detention."

          "The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has found that administrative detention is often used as
            ' ...a quick and efficient alternative to criminal trial, primarily when they do not have sufficient evidence to charge the individual, or when they do not want to reveal their evidence. This use of administrative detention is absolutely prohibited and totally blurs the distinction between preventive and punitive detention.'"

          also interesting is this...

          "B’Tselem also found that, 'Israel administratively detains Palestinians for their political opinions and non-violent political activity. Following signing of the Oslo Accords, Israel also administratively detained Palestinians who opposed the peace process. 'This is obviously a violation of the international minimum standards of freedom of speech and expression, and so is a violation of international law."

          And even when these kidnap victims, or captured individuals, do have a trial, the legal validity of these trials is highly questionable...

          "Palestinians are tried within Israeli military courts located within Israeli military centers in the OPT. These military tribunals are presided over by a panel of three judges appointed by the military, two of whom often do not have any legal training or background. These tribunals rarely fall within the required international standards of fair trial."

          As I said, your bias has blinded you to the truth.  Time to open your eyes and stop supporting the illegal and immoral actions of the extremists that are directing Israeli policies and actions.  Honestly.  

          •  Take your site spam elsewhere (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Democritus

            The site you are desperately trying to get someone to click-thru to has such lovely gems as:

            Support for Israel interferes with: American relations with the oil-producing nations, with whom we previously had friendly ties; with Muslim consumers, who represent 1.2 billion people world-wide...

            So it's not really about the suffering, it's about increasing the wealth of Americans? By golly, 1.2 more billion people we can market useless crap to!

            •  calm down (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              anonymousredvest18

              Just posting a few quick snippets to show that the notion that all captured Palestinians are given fair trials is BS.  

              Desperately trying to get someone to click-thru to?  Please, tell me you are kidding - I was simply referencing my sources for the quotes.  Seemed like linking to where I clipped from was the polite thing to do.  I could care less if anyone goes and reads the sites' other content.

              But if you want to think it is all part of some larger nefarious corporate plot, feel free.  LOL  Too funny.

      •  I was wondering (0+ / 0-)

        how long it would take for this meme to make its way into this diary:

        While I can understand why some people would like to shut down the debate by running thru and crying 'anti-semetic wolf! anti-semetic wolf!', that will no longer work as it has in the past.  

        Yes, yes everyone is looking to silence you through spurious charges of anti-Semitism. The decision came down after we found the Iraqi WMD...in Atlantis of all places.

        W's First Veto: not for tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel spending and earmarks, or civil liberties violations, but for stem cell research.

        by Red Sox on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:51:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah yes... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DSPS owl

          Sarcasm, right?

          Read the parent post again...

          As for the actual anti-Semites and "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's"...well, I hope that they eventually find whatever it is that they need to fill the hole in their hearts created by that hatred.

          The poster is lumping together anti-semitic and anti-Israeli like they are the same thing, or at the very least suggesting that those that are critical of Israel are really anti-semitic.  Furthermore, the poster also seeks to dismiss anti-Israeli sentiments as being based solely in hatred.  Unacceptable.

          I am not really sure why you wish to suggest that spurious charges of anti-semitism are not used as a tool to shut down debate on Israel, as there are many examples of just this type of thing all over the web.  It has become a bit of a knee-jerk reaction for some.  For some it is conscious, for many others it is just a learned response.

          I read the quote above and I see someone that is trying to blur the line between anti-semitism and criticism of Israel.  I guess you see something else, which must be why you posted this rather inane bit of sarcasm.

          •  I do indeed see something else (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Democritus

            The poster is lumping together anti-semitic and anti-Israeli like they are the same thing, or at the very least suggesting that those that are critical of Israel are really anti-semitic.  Furthermore, the poster also seeks to dismiss anti-Israeli sentiments as being based solely in hatred.  Unacceptable.

            I would agree with your belief that it's unacceptable if I read his words the way you did. Let's look back at the relevant portion you quoted:

            As for the actual anti-Semites and "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's"...well, I hope that they eventually find whatever it is that they need to fill the hole in their hearts created by that hatred.

            What I think he's saying is that while not everyone critical of Israel is anti-Semitic, just about everyone who is anti-Semitic is critical of Israel. When they are called on their hatemongering, they hide behind the lie of just being critical of Israeli policies (saying, as the diarist said, "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionists"). By perpetuating the fallacy of all these spurious charges of anti-Semitism, those who are merely looking to either support the Palestinians or condemn Israeli government policies basically help real anti-Semites blur the line between criticism and hate.

            W's First Veto: not for tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel spending and earmarks, or civil liberties violations, but for stem cell research.

            by Red Sox on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:18:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  maybe. (0+ / 0-)

              the words are...

              As for the actual anti-Semites AND "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's"

              Going through it slowly -

              "As for the actual anti-Semites"

              This I take to be a reference to people that are actually anti-semitic, based on the use of the word 'actual'.  As opposed to those that are NOT actually anti-semitic.

              "and"

              Clearly a conjunctive, used to join two things together.

              "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's"

              a reference to those that say their criticism is not anti-semitic, and is in fact based on anti-Israeli, or anti-zionistic feelings.  As opposed to "actual" anti-semites.

              Put it all together, and you get someone that is talking about ACTUAL anti-semites, AND people that claim they are just...  blah blah blah.  You get the point.

              If the poster intended what you say, he presented it poorly.  The English language interpretation of his actual words is closer to the 'lumping them together' reading I obviously walked away with.

              With a starting sentance of "I too simply can't stand some of the B.S. comming from the anti-Israel people." - I really do think he was bluring the line between the 2, attempting to slander those that were speaking out against what Israel was doing, though maybe it was accidental.  At the very least, it was sloppy writing.

              But, perhaps we are both a bit sensitive, just in different directions.  :)

              •  Sloppy writing (0+ / 0-)

                If the poster intended what you say, he presented it poorly.  The English language interpretation of his actual words is closer to the 'lumping them together' reading I obviously walked away with.

                You have a fair point on the sloppiness. First, the quote one more time:

                As for the actual anti-Semites AND "we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's"

                I read it as:

                "As for the actual anti-Semites" (i.e. not your garden variety Israel critic on Kos, but those who coyly couch their anti-Semitism in criticism of Israel) "AND 'we're just anti-Israel/anti-Zionist's'" (the quotations indicate the refrain of anti-Semites who so dishonestly hide behind legitimate criticism of Israeli policy).

                In other words, while perhaps poorly phrased, he was actually differentiating between those who criticize Israeli policy on political and/or humanitarian grounds, and those who hide their anti-Semitism in terms of attacks on Israel. Sometimes it's hard to differentiate the two, and if either the Jew-haters on one side or the most extreme conservatives on the other are successful, they'll completely blur the line.

                W's First Veto: not for tax cuts for the rich, pork barrel spending and earmarks, or civil liberties violations, but for stem cell research.

                by Red Sox on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:43:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  This is well done...even if I have disagreements (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    odum, anonymousredvest18

    I find it unfortunate that American jewry is religiously involved with the policies of the government/military of Israel...wouldn't it be so much more helpful if folks like yourself were all just simply objective and yet interested parties?

    Still, great diary, really appreciate your involvement here.

    Thanks for writing this.

    •  And I think statements like this underscore (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mentaldebris, grayslady, lale

      exactly why this diary was written-

      First of all, I think it's pretty insulting to any religious Jew to say that they are 'religiously involved' with Israel since Jews are supposed to only be devoted to God.

      Secondly, I have met very, very few American Jews who support Israeli violence or the treatment of the Palestinians. The only support most give is the support of Israel itself, to keep Israel alive as a nation, something many, both Jewish and non-Jewish alike, feel is important.

      Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

      by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:54:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The latest poll shows that Americans are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sarac, Arken

        rallying to Israel.  According to the Christian Science Monitor:

        ...support for Israel had grown since conflicts began with Hizbullah and Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian group that was elected into power last January in the Palestinian territories. Conflict erupted between Israel and Hamas in Gaza last month over the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. The latest Israel Project poll found that US public support of Israel had risen to 60 percent, up from 45 percent last January, before the election of Hamas. Support for the Palestinians remained at 7 percent in both polls.

        The latest CNN poll has it at 57% of Americans sympathetic with Israel, 4% with Hezbollah, and 20% more with "neither."

        Meanwhile, in Israel, "in a poll published at the end of last week in the newspaper Ma'ariv, 95% of those surveyed supported the government's actions in Lebanon."

      •  Let me clarify (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18, Arken

        By "American Jewry", I meant most American Jews (if we are to believe polling on the subject of support for Israel's policies).

        The survey, carried out July 11-21 by Stanley B. Greenberg, Ph.D. of Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research Inc. for the American Jewish Committee, is part of one of the largest public opinion research projects ever carried out in the U.S. to gauge attitudes towards Israel.

        -- Eighty-five percent of American Jews supports Israel in the ongoing conflict (64 percent strongly support, and 21 percent support Israel), one percent supports the Palestinians, while four percent doesn't support either side and 9 percent supports both sides equally.

        http://www.scienceblog.com/...

        By "religiously involved", I meant Jews who view their relationship to Israel through a primarily religious lense of identification, as opposed to a more objective "American national" lense, which takes as its point of reference the foreign-ness of the sovereign nation Israel.

        Still insulted?

        •  I think religous is the wrong word here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel

          Israel is much much more secular than the USA, and I am pretty sure that fewer Israeli Jews go to temple regularly than American Jews.  If soemone landed in Tel Aviv on Yom Kippur, they would think it was a day when cars stayed off the road so everyone could ride bicycles.

          Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

          by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:29:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well (6+ / 0-)

    I normally stay away from I/P debates because this is one subject where you can't have a rational discussion with anyone because you will be accused by partisans on both sides of being an apologist for the other.

    •  So true (0+ / 0-)

      I mean I think Israel is probably more in the right than not, but I actually blame the U.S. government.  For years, we used to be the honest brokers over there, but now we refuse to talk, even in secret, to the other side.  I think that's hurt the prospects for peace more than people realize.

      And I sure don't claim to apologize for anything either side has done.  But I will say this: violence tends to begat more violence, at least i these undeclared fights that never officially end.  The Palestinians have to accept the fact that Israel isn't going away, and Israel has to accept the fact that they might have to actually negotiate away more than they'd ideally like.

      All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

      by Harkov311 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:08:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh did we go through this last week (20+ / 0-)

    on Monday, when nyceve wrote I am a Jew, which got over 1100 comments

    and I took a comment I had written and, upon the request of others, posted it as a separate diary entitled I read Eve's diary early and recommended it, which got over 200.

    Both diaries were attempting to explain something about the Jewish experience.  Some of the comments were, to put it mildly, unfortunate.

    If you explore beyond the last 300 diaries prior to your posting you will see the depths of the problem.  

    I am old enough to remember the reflexive pro-Palestinian stance of many of the left during the Vietnam era, to the point where some even justified Munich.    I remember being at JFK meeting a friend returning from London when the first group of those who had been hijacked, left on the planes w/o a/c in the Jordanian desert for several days, returned to the US.  I remember Arafat - who in fact was mild compared to Palestinian leaders like George Habash of PFLP - flat out told the UN that in one hand he had an olive branch and in the other a weapon.  

    I will not revisit.  I have written about this before.  And it is not my intent to jump back in.   But this is an issue that is potentially very explosive and hurtful.  And that has been repeatedly demonstrated on this website.

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

    by teacherken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:39:59 PM PDT

    •  Yes, teacherken. (30+ / 0-)

      And yes, I remember too...

      I remember waking up on Sept. 12th, to find people I had known for decades, and counted among my dearest people on earth, deciding I was suddenly "the enemy".

      I remember receiving letters, emails, for years afterwards, making all sorts of threats, simply because I dissented with Shrub's foreign policy. (I did support the invasion of Afghanistan, and wish our armed forces had been more completely focused on locating Bin Laden and rooting out Al Quaeda).

      I remember even very mild criticism of Israeli policy being promptly interpreted as anti-Semitism, by a dear Jewish friend. One whose physical safety, I might add, I have defended at personal risk to myself, and on whose behalf I have spoken up loudly when anti-Jewish sentiments were aired.

      I remember being accused of Holocaust denial, even though I have been known to promptly interrupt a public, technical presentation upon overhearing a whispered anti-Semitic remark within the audience, to segue into an immediate, extensive, online tour of Yad Vashem memorial based on their website.

      I remember hearing, over, and over, and over again, how people who look like me, deserve to be killed or worse, tortured live on teevee, so the public can be educated how "we" deal with "traitors". My treason ? Dissenting early and often with invading Iraq.

      I remember colleagues and subordinates at the workplace, openly stating the need to return to the days of race-based segregation. In housing, schooling, and family-raising. I remember hearing from some of the same, remarks made when people knew these were off the record, blanket statements as to how everybody of complexion darker than their own deserved to be killed, or driven out of the country, to preserve "racial purity" and prevent "mutt children" being born. This is right here, in the USofA, at the dawn of the 21st century. Never mind that I am myself a citizen (by birth) of this land.

      I remember going to supper with a good friend, with other friends of theirs, and being informed by a darling, charming, home-schooled child, perhaps all of five or six years old, that: (i) the Commandment reads, "Thou shalt not murder", NOT "Thou shalt not kill", and (ii) being presented with a whole litany of minority groups that, the child had apparently been taught, it was okay to kill, i.e., killing whom would not amount to murder.

      So, yes, I remember much also.

      The aftermath of the Iraq invasion has truly unleashed something very nasty, very ugly, within this country, and I am not sure if it can be put back into the bottle easily.

      I am not Jewish. I am not Muslim. I am not Christian. I am not an Arab. I have had good friends from all of these groups.

      All I seek is Peace.

      For the sake of balance, and because this diary is very well written, I will recommend it.

      Shalom Aleichem, to all.

      •  Amen, bhishma n/t (5+ / 0-)

        www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

        by chuckvw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:18:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry you have had to go through that. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        celticshel, Bhishma

        Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

        by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:59:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To both Arken and chuckvw: (6+ / 0-)

          Thank you both.

          My apologies if I sounded shrill or distraught. My apologies for sharing so much of myself. The past weeks have taken their toll, added onto that of the past years.

          Though born in the US, I have spent much of my life abroad, mostly in Asia. It sometimes strikes me, too few Americans have lived in other countries. As a college student, I was close witness to the rise of religious fundamentalism out of nowhere, and did everything in the power of a college student to protest; in the "I remember" format, I remember being tear-gassed among other nice things for rallying against religious intolerance, and I remember posting guard outside the homes of faculty members whose safety and lives might have been at risk, and who had certainly received ominous threats.

          It pains me to no end, physically so, it makes my head hurt, to see the seeds of fundalmentalism being sown and carefully nurtured in the US all over again. This is a beast I have, sadly, grown to know well, and which I truly hate, and whose destructive power I am quite aware of. It pains me equally to see similar, futile, struggles, laced with religious overtones, continue on seemingly endlessly in the Middle East.

          I also remember hearing first-person accounts of Gandhi's efforts towards religious amity/comity between India and Pakistan, and of wondering often why on earth the Palestinian leadership generates figures like Arafat and entities like Hamas, rather than Gandhi, Mandela, or MLK.

          •  Something I have often wondered myself. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bhishma

            And I think the answer is that Ghandi was a wonderful exception to the rule unfortunately.

            Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

            by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:22:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You may be right, not sure, though.... (3+ / 0-)

              I am not very well-informed re: the formative influences for Mandela/Bishop Desmond Tutu, but, it may be relevant that Gandhi spent a fair length of time in South Africa, and first made his mark there. He returned to India in his early forties, I believe, already a fairly well-known figure.

              Is it just possible that Mandela/Tutu may have been influenced by the legacy of Gandhi in South Africa ? I know MLK did mention Gandhi as one of his inspirations.

              Gandhi himself was strongly influenced by Tolstoy, and the New Testament.

              Non-violence and civil disobedience do indeed work, and so-called "passive resistance" is not an oxymoron. It is a much more constructive path.

              Although S. Africa has been wracked with violent crime and other problems, it has not devolved into the kind of ugly inter-ethnic bloodbath many (including myself) had feared might ensure as apartheid was finally dismantled.

              Perhaps Desmond Tutu and Mandela, and also De Clerk, have something they could teach; after all, these figures are still alive and with us, whereas Gandhi and MLK now belong to the ages.

          •  Ghandis and MLKs (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bhishma

            are unfortunately rare.

            But I think one problem is that, when a Palestinian says something moderate, he (or she) risks his life, not from the Israelis, but from other Palestinians.

            I know MLK wasn't universally popular among Blacks, but there was no huge antiKing movement among Black Americans.

            Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

            by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:36:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is VERY true. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              plf515

              But.....the Gandhis and MLK's and Yitzhak Rabin's are great precisely because they know the risk exists, and yet do what is right. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic, and I believe Rabin's assassin was from within Israel.

              It is always difficult, very isolating, and can be dangerous, to do what is right.

              The problem you mention seems to be one which rages across the Islamic world these days, and I suspect it may be because hardliners gain ground when there is a perception of external threat. How does one encourage moderate voices without raising the threat perception ? This is a difficult question, but, the Bushist rhetoric certainly has not helped, and may have even harmed by (for example) maybe assisting in the rise to power of Ahmedi-Najad in Iran.

      •  I am sorry for that (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        celticshel, Sopiane, tbetz, Bhishma, lemming22

        As one of the most pro-Israel people on this blog, I am sorry for that.   As a person who was IN the WTC when it was hit, I am sorry for that
         
        Bigotry is bigotry.

        But somehow, bigotry by my own people, Jews, strikes me as even more disgusting than bigotry by others.  As  one of the most hated groups in the histroy of mankind, it seems to me we should make natrual allies with all the other hated groups.  

        Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

        by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:33:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  THANK YOU. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          celticshel, TiaRachel, DSPS owl, plf515

          And......I am sorry now for having written as much, and as revealingly, as I did, and feel embarrassed. Things have been going on which I'd rather not write about, and I have felt quite distraught lately, perhaps not the best time to turn to DailyKos, which is usually my first stop for news and commentary. Mea Culpa.

          And.....I AM SO SORRY that you had to endure the horrors of 9/11 personally, and happy that you survived. Please accept my apology, on behalf of all those whose roots trace to Asia, that persons from that continent were the authors of that terrible event.

          I may have come across more strongly than was quite my intent. I did not mean to quite imply bigotry among Jewish people, perhaps because, I have cared about some Jewish people as much as it is possible for a Gentile to do, and therefore, it hurts me to be critical, if that makes any sense. What I have noticed, and had pointed out to me by Jewish people I have known very well indeed, is a real sensitivity re: the subject of Israel. I can sort of almost understand this; it is one thing for one inside the community to criticize, but quite another for an outsider/Gentile to. Despite being prepared for this, and having had this explained to me and trying to be ultra-careful in choice of words, I have been surprised, is as much as I want to say.

          The other point you mention is an excellent one, and applies to the vast majority of Jewish people I've known, and is another reason I find the community one that I am drawn towards: the vast majority of Jewish people instinctively know what it feels like to be put upon, and can understand and sympathize with those who are weak.  

          Looking around my office.....among all the stacks of technical books and papers littering bookcases and shelves, there is precisely one non-technical work of literature. This is a slim volume by Elie Wiesel, entitled, "Night"; it lives in a prominently visible location, for a reason: for people to note what is important to me. And yes, the fact this is the one non-work-related in my space, has indeed drawn comment and has been noted.

          Anti-Semitism in the US, even today, is real. It does exist, much to my immense surprise. I would have though, 60 years after WWII, after all that has been made public knowledge re: the Holocaust, people would be educated, by now. Imagine my surprise to find that I am wrong, and people who really, really, should know better utter the darnedest things about Jews.

          Sometimes, it is clearly in the expectation that (based on stupid and ignorant stereotypes) I might perhaps be sympathetic, and join in the bashing. Imagine the surprise when such bigots are rapidly disabused, and find me making it very clear that such talk will draw sharp rebuttals, reprimands if appropriate, if it comes into my purview. I really would have thought such talk had gone for good, but, somehow, in the wake of the churning started by the horrible events of 9/11, I have noticed anti-Semitic statements percolating through.

          This, anti-Semitism, that is, is easier for me to fight, as (i) I am an outsider, and can act as being impartial, and (ii) many are aware of the history, and at least some can be counted on to speak up also, if only out of shame. Other things, it is much harder (for me) to speak up about, if one is oneself in the group being mis-categorized, as it can come across as defensive/knee-jerk/reflexive.

    •  Errrm.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anonymousredvest18

      "I remember Arafat - who in fact was mild compared to Palestinian leaders like George Habash of PFLP - flat out told the UN that in one hand he had an olive branch and in the other a weapon."

      Um, have you looked at the Great Seal of the United States recently?

      That's old, and not particularly radical, rhetoric.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Libertarian Liberal

      by neroden on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:31:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sorry you're angry (11+ / 0-)

    But please name an antisemite.  One.  Single. REGULAR. Kossak.  Who is an antisemite.

    And furthermore:

    Israel is like family, and having your family get beaten up makes you angry.  Angry enough to vote Republican?  Well, 23% of Jews already do vote Republican, and then there is the Joe Lieberman wing of the party.

    I don't, personally, have a "side" in the Israel/Lebanon conflict.  But I would ask you  not not compare "getting angry" at having "family" "beaten up" to dead kids.  

    Israel is making lots of kids . . . dead.  I don't mean kids so close to the I/P border that Israel has an immediate reason to kill them.  I mean kids in Beruit, which is nowhere near that close.

    No problem with Israel.  No problem with Jewish folks.  Just please stop making children not alive anymore.

    "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

    by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:41:38 PM PDT

    •  Let me amend that . . . (10+ / 0-)

      Sorry . . . I just re-read that comment I wrote.  I was equating Israeli "policy" with "Jewish".  That is inexusable and it was an accident.

      Please retract my last comment.

      "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:43:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've noticed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Monkey In Chief, sunbro, gkn, Bhishma

      that the virulent anti-Semitic garbage has been authored by trolls. The real Kossacks have tried their best to be fair. And if I can't support Istael in this, and I'm Jewish, I can certainly accept that other Kossacks cannot as well.

      I'm also spending less time on DKos because of all this, and I do believe there is some bigotry coming to the fore among members, but It's not the norm.

      I also understand the diarist's "family" allusions, having grown up in that environment as well. It's instinctive and hard for non-Jews to completely get. But, regardless, I do not accept an "Israel right or wrong" mentality, and in this case Israel is wrong.

      Finally, it was a brave diary to write.

    •  But what should Israel DO? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TiaRachel

      A lot of people say what Israel should NOT do, and I have some sympathy for some of this.  Clearly, killing innocents is wrong.  I don't think ANYONE argues that, INCLUDING the Israelis - well, there are a few crazies in Israel who might, but Olmert would not.  

      What should Israel do?

      How to stop Hezbollah without killing innocent people?

      I haven't heard ANYONE suggest something.

      Republicans worry about our souls and their bellies. Democrats worry about their souls and our bellies

      by plf515 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:40:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  and this is what you will not hear (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cecil vortex, TiaRachel, plf515

        because no one has an answer.

        Demonizing the Israelis is easy. You don't need a universal translator to see that to some, right here in this thread ..  it clearly means more than just 'Israelis'.

        The solution?
        To some, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, we know what their idea of a 'solution' is. But there are others who are not terrorists, who do not view violence as the answer - on both sides.

        Bush's adminstration is at fault for not working, as Clinton did, towards continued dialog.

        This is what happens when the US loses it's staus as an honest broker, and ignores the situation.

    •  if you cannot see this by simply looking in this (0+ / 0-)

      diary, I'm sorry ..

      No problem with Israel.  No problem with Jewish folks.  Just please stop making children not alive anymore.

      Hamas and Hezbollah.
      Are they listening to you as well?

  •  Israel Lobby has Pimped our Party (7+ / 0-)

    I'm glad 77% of Jews voted for Kerry, but doesn't make what Israel is doing right.  And if it comes down to losing the Jewish vote in order to do the right thing, so be it.  I, for one, am just sick and tired of the twisted logic employed to defend the utter degradation and dehuminization of every Arab within Scud missile range of the "Jewish" state.  The lable "terrorist" has turned into a mere code word for sub-humans it's alright to kill, and who's children are alright to kill, and who's assets are alright to steal, and who's country doesn't deserve legitimacy.

    The Isaeli lobby has turned almost all our politicians into whores for campaign money (and 1-2 million Jewish votes).  It's destroying us and it has doomed the Jewish state.  

    •  you have the completely wrong idea (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cecil vortex, chuckvw, gkn

      especially for this cycle.

      This election will be won by turnout. The Dems cannot afford to alienate anyone at this point.

      (-7.25,-5.95) "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." -Edward R. Murrow

      by adamschloss on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:58:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Totally (10+ / 0-)

      here are some excerpts from article printed in the NY Times from March 2004.

      The diarist mentions Jewish support for John Kerry. Yeah, that's a surprise:

      Senator John Kerry told dozens of Jewish leaders in New York on Sunday that he would continue the Bush administration policy of vetoing any United Nations Security Council resolutions seen as one-sided against Israel, participants in a closed 90-minute meeting said.

      At the meeting, attended by the heads of major Jewish groups and Jewish politicians, he also repeated what he said in the televised debate earlier on Sunday: that the barrier Israel is erecting to separate Palestinian territories from Israeli ones is a fence, not a wall.

      And why was Kerry meeting Jewish leaders at this time?

      In part, Mr. Kerry was doing damage control from a speech to an Arab-American group in Dearborn, Mich., last October in which he called the Israel-Palestinian partition a "barrier to peace," several people at the meeting said. "Today was the first time he seriously addressed it," said Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

      And how did it go over?

      But Jack Rosen, the president of the American Jewish Congress, said Mr. Kerry, while reassuring, had not entirely won him over.

      Mr. Rosen said Mr. Kerry had said he would be far more engaged in the Middle East peace process than Mr. Bush. "What does more engagement mean?" Mr. Rosen asked. "Because typically when Democrats accuse Bush of not being engaged enough, it's an excuse for not bullying the Israelis enough."

      (snip)

      Mr. Rosen, a longtime Democrat who gave $100,000 in so-called soft money to the Republican National Committee in 2002 to show support for the administration's Israel policy, said he did not expect to decide whom to support until November.

      He also said that if American Jews continued to see terrorism as a priority, particularly terrorism against Jews, "it will be harder for Democrats to maintain the high percentages of the Jewish vote that they have in the past."

      Others felt better:

      Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Mr. Kerry added the names of two former Clinton administration officials — Samuel R. Berger, who was national security adviser, and Dennis Ross, who was a special Middle East envoy — to the list of people he might send to the region as emissaries.

      Mr. Kerry angered some Israel supporters in December by suggesting two men for such a mission thought by some Jews to be biased against Israel: James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, and former President Jimmy Carter.

      Mr. Foxman said that Mr. Kerry "came very close to where the president is" on several fundamental positions. "There was very little room between him and Bush," he said.

      What is the problem with Carter? After all his has posted with extremely enthusiastic reception here at Kos. Could it be this?

      I suspect so.

      Conclusion, the support of the "Friends of Israel" to the Democratic party is 'soft'. And by "Friend of Israel" I mean those who support endless militarism, expansionism and let's face it, racism.

      I would rather vote for what I want and lose, than vote for what I don't want and win. Eugene Debs

      by tgs1952 on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:10:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, TiaRachel, dufffbeer, gkn, isis2

      Color me confused.

      Where exactly did you see the diarist employ "twisted logic employed to defend the utter degradation and dehuminization of every Arab within Scud missile range of the "Jewish" state"?

      Also, just to be clear - are you saying that Hezbollah has been incorrectly labeled as "terrorist" group, or am I reading that wrong?

      Nice to know that it's just the Israeli lobby that has turned almost all of our politicians into such whores, too.  I did not realize that, I guess every other PAC and lobbyist is just wasting their time. Maybe you should write and tell them.

      You know, if you're so disgusted with the Democratic Party position on Israel, there are dozens of other political parties you can support.

      •  It's guerrilla warfare, been around (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuckvw, anonymousredvest18, Oothoon

        a long time. The word terrorist is indended to dehumanize. I wish we would not have bought into the use of that word. Massive bombing out of airplanes and assassinations in public places cause terrorism, too.

        It's now a "We're all Israelis" moment. Mehlman "In my interpretation, the war on terror is a false metaphor - the opposite of a fertile fallacy." Soros

        by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:21:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who has killed more? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anonymousredvest18, Oothoon

          ...every "terrorist" on the planet, or the state of Israel.  Every "terror" attact in the past 20 years combined has probably used less munitions, killed and injured fewer people, and caused less infrastructure and proprty damage, created fewer refugees, and ruined more lives than the Israelis have in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon.

          •  You do know Israel history right? (5+ / 0-)

            Irgun (ארגון), shorthand for Irgun Tsvai Leumi (ארגון צבאי לאומי, also spelled Irgun Zvai Leumi), Hebrew for "National Military Organization", was a clandestine militant Zionist group that operated in the British Mandate of Palestine from 1931 to 1948. In Israel, this group is commonly referred to as Etzel (אצ"ל), an acronym of the Hebrew initials. In the time in which the Irgun operated, often people referred to the Irgun as 'הגנה ב or ההגנה הלאומית. The Irgun was classified by the British authorities and several other Jewish organizations as a terrorist organization, while others considered it to be an independence movement. Its political association with Revisionist Zionism rendered it a predecessor movement to modern Israel's right-wing Likud party/coalition.
            snip
            Based on the premises formulated by Ze'ev Jabotinsky that "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state," (Howard Sachar: A History of the State of Israel, pps 265-266) the group made retaliation against Arab attacks a central part of their initial efforts.
            snip
            Leaders within the mainstream Jewish Agency, Haganah, Histadrut, as well as British authorities, routinely condemned (publicly at least; privately the Haganah kept a dialogue with the dissident groups) Irgun operations as terrorist and branded it an illegal organization, as a result of the group's attacks on civilian targets.
            snip
            Operations that are usually characterized as "terrorist" had another character. The King David Hotel bombing, in which 91 people were killed, most of them civilians, was considered a legitimate military target, being the British military headquarters; the attack on Deir Yassin was part of a campaign to control the road between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv; the attack on the Acre prison was to release prisoners the British intended to hang.

            Just saying.

            It's now a "We're all Israelis" moment. Mehlman "In my interpretation, the war on terror is a false metaphor - the opposite of a fertile fallacy." Soros

            by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:48:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You don't say ... (0+ / 0-)

          ...guerilla warfare's been around for a long time - gee the things I learn here.

          I just want to understand your position. According to you, is:

          Hezbollah a terrorist group?
          Hamas a terrorist group?
          Al Quaeda a terrorist group?

          Just answer with a simple yes or no, I don't need a treatise on M/E history or a psychology course. And I'm not asking for a cause/effect analysis.

          •  I don't buy into a ANY word that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sanuk

            dehumanizes people. Terrorism is a war technique, not a very nice one, but one used over and over by the disinfranchized. Go to the root.

            It's now a "We're all Israelis" moment. Mehlman "In my interpretation, the war on terror is a false metaphor - the opposite of a fertile fallacy." Soros

            by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:42:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But the Israelis are terrorists? (0+ / 0-)

              State sponsored terrorism .. right?

              •  By the old definition yes. I would (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18

                like to change my view of the definition, as I can see it is counterproductive. Unless you have two armies in uniforms facing themselves in a field, then you have guerrilla warfare. Bombing civilian centers and assassinations in civilian areas is using terror as a war tactic. Whether used by a militia or a state.

                Main Entry: 1guer·ril·la
                Variant(s): or gue·ril·la g&-'ri-l&, ge-, g(y)i-
                Function: noun
                Etymology: Spanish guerrilla, from diminutive of guerra war, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife -- more at WAR
                : a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.

                The word "Terrorists" dehumanizes the enemy, like calling people evil, there are legitimate psychopaths out there, but I bet most terrorists don't fit the profile.

                When you want to win the trust of a feral cat, you start by not hitting it when it scatches you.

                by mattes on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:10:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  With all due respect... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18

        ...my relationship to the Party and it's various positions is none of your effin business.

        •  The party? (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          shpilk
          Hidden by:
          lotlizard

          Which one, the brownshirts?

          Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

          by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:07:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Jeebus... (4+ / 0-)

            no one wants to go there...

            Let's all take a valium...

          •  that was justified {your comment, not the tr!} (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cecil vortex, TiaRachel

            and sadly, the diarists conclusions are clearly being   proven by the clearly racist and bigoted responses that have in some cases over 20 recommends.

            Incredible. The level of insensitivity and hatred towards Jews that is so transparent .. it's hidden in fancy disclaimers, but it reeks up this place; shows it's ugly face at so many places on this diary.

            I'm getting sick of it. I am beginning to re-evalaute a lot of things after seeing the level of hate here. But, it isn't just against Jews .. we are serving as canaries in the coal mine to an extent here.  

            I have seen insensitivity and hatred towards women, towards gays and transgendered people and Catholics as well.

            And yet, some of those posters appear to be 'liberals' in their other posts as well.
            It's very, very disturbing.

            •  I'm a little slow this morning. (0+ / 0-)

              Where is the hatred and bigotry that's getting 20+ recommends?

              Probably my bad, I don't have my glasses--my eyes are hurting, so I'm reading fast.  I've seen heated argument, and I've seen disagreements.  But I'm not seeing hatred for Jewish people, or racism, or bigotry.  Could you give examples?

    •  Losing the Jewish vote would be disastrous... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anonymousredvest18, gkn, Bhishma
      for the Dems. Putting aside the issue of Israel for the moment, the reason Jews tend to vote Democratic is that they have a greater sense of culture and history than your average American. Jews tend to be better educated than your average American, and the more highly educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic.

      Jews have always tended to tilt to the progressive side and to be concerned about social justice, perhaps because historically, they have been excluded by society. So I cannot imagine an America in which Jews would tend to vote Republican.

      So I vehemently disagree with you FredFred, when you say that "Jewish Democrats are just like gay Republicans." I would say that Jewish Democrats are like redneck Republicans: one expects rednecks to be primitive, and so to vote Republican; one expects Jews to be sophisticated, and hence vote Democratic. (This may sound like "cultural stereotyping" and hence may be very non-PC, but all I am doing is expressing valid statistical generalities.)

      But this remark is worth pondering further. How are Jewish Democrats like gay Republicans? For that analogy to go through, I think it is undeniable that one of the main ways that Dems appeal to their base would have to be by bashing Jews and saying that they are somehow deviant. For the analogy to go through completely, Dems would have to introduce legislation restricting the rights of Jews, as the Nazis did early on in their reign. I feel I must note that I cannot avoid detecting a certain paranoia in play here.

      The only way I can think of that Jewish Democrats are anything like gay Republicans, in the sense that Dems (Carter anyway) do not always give them all they want, is that up until now at least, Dem support of Israel has not been absolutely unconditional, the way Bush's is. But why should Jewish Americans think that America owes them anything at all when it comes to what kind of foreign policy the US should conduct in the Middle East? I am a first generation American, and my parents came from a particular European country. But I do not think that America, or the Democratic Party, owes me anything at all when it comes to whether the US carries on a foreign policy that is favorable to that country. The only thing I can expect or demand from America when it comes to foreign policy is that it carry out a foreign policy that is favorable to itself.

      Liberalism is the origin and center of American politics. Thus, to reject liberalism is to reject America.

      by Alexander on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:51:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not 'Israel Lobby', Likudnik Lobby (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anonymousredvest18, Petronella

      To be fair, the so-called "Israel Lobby" which has caused so much trouble worked against Israeli (Labor) government attempts at a peace settlement.  It is better characterized as a right-wing Likudnik lobby.  Calling it the "Israel Lobby" simply gives them the legitimacy which they pretend to have.  It doesn't represent most Jews in Israel, let alone in the US.

      -5.63, -8.10 | Libertarian Liberal

      by neroden on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:35:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How do you define anti-Israel? (31+ / 0-)

    You say:

    in the last 300 diaries, there are 23 against Israel

    What does that mean?  Are you including diaries that are critical of recent Israeli military actions? If you are, then I disagree with your entire premise.  When I criticize various actions of the United States, I don't consider my remarks anti-American. I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made of their current policy.  Please note:  I'm not defending Hezzbolah, and I believe Israel has every right to defend themselves...but they are bombing the crap out of Lebanon.  

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:46:27 PM PDT

  •  Hold on a second (47+ / 0-)

    I clicked on two of your links (two of the diaries I had read, because I don't remember reading diaries as imbalanced as you claim).

    And the second one I clicked on was clammyc's diary. Now, in the diary, clammyc identifies himself as Jewish, so I'm sure he knows, as well as you do, "how it feels to be a Jew who follows dKos closely." And you claim his diary is about "How Israel is creating terrorists." Here's the first paragraph of clammyc's diary:

    I'm embarrassed.  And disgusted.

    Embarrassed and disgusted to know people (and even be related to people) that have taken this twisted point of view to justify the killing of innocent children in Iraq.  Or innocent Palestinian children.  Or any innocent children for that matter.  

    How does someone that otherwise can be so sane and rational turn to such a hateful, bigoted, racist person when it comes to this?  How can anyone EVER justify killing innocent people, especially children?  This is something that should be so basic, so fundamental to someone that once those eight words are uttered to me, the conversation is over and my view of these people (and unfortunately a good level of respect for people that I otherwise held in pretty high regard) is shot to shit.

    That's a very specific argument, targeted to people who assume all the dead in these conflicts are expendable since they'd end up being terrorists. This is about how people justify killing, not about the effect that Israel's or the US' actions will have.

    Now, in the text of his diary, he uses the word Israel once, to describe a conversations he has with a friend, also Jewish. And here's where the title comes from:

    War is hell.  They would have grown up to become terrorists anyway."  

    It was a few weeks ago when I first heard that statement when discussing little Ricky's pathetic announcement of the "discovery" of all them WMDs, the firebombing of Fallujah with illegal chemical weapons ordered right after the 2004 election, the bombings of wedding ceremonies and Rumsfeld's de facto ordering of torture of many in Iraq and Afghanistan who certainly weren't associated with ANYTHING terrorist related.  I'm too embarrassed to even say who the conversation was with but suffice to say that it was someone I have known my entire life, am otherwise very close with (short of our political leanings) and had the utmost respect for.  

    A reference about Iraq, not Israel.

    Now, clammyc gave us a diary that was honest and very personal. You gave us a diary that, at least in this case, misrepresented someone else's argument to make your point. I'd say clammyc is making a more compelling case.

    This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

    by emptywheel on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:47:26 PM PDT

  •  Sorry, but (29+ / 0-)

    you are appealing to a low form of political discourse, and I find your title offensive.

    You do not speak for all Jews who frequent this site or are visiting this site.

    "Sensitive" Jews, like all sensitive people, should not be upset by legitimate criticism of Israel, but should  be horrified by Israel's current actions.

    The list of writers most critical of Israel's existence as a Jewish state of course includes many Jews.

    You're worried because some Jews identify a flawed, militarist government as "family?"

    Frankly, that's their problem. As in any dysfunctional familial relationship, there are some "sensitivities" which seem to be, and often are, used as a cynical, manipulative ploy.

  •  Maybe a sign of frustration? (11+ / 0-)
    At least for myself it is. It is frustration over the success the terrorrists have in gradually making us behave like they want us to behave. We're starting to lose the battle because we've begun to fight it on their terms. They make us slowly but steadily abandon, what once were our values and beliefs.

    I remember the moment (if not the exact date and circumstances) it dawned on me: The morning news reported that Israel had tried to kill one Hamas leader - I dont't remember whether they succeeded - and in the process killed, I think, three civilians, including a little girl.

    I think it was the last item before the weather forecast.

    "So, what have we become?", I thought. "And where will we go from there?". "And what will we be like eventually, when things go on like that?"

    What if you took the outcry in those diaries and comments not as anti-semitic but rather as an - albeit clumsy - way of trying to tell a fried: "Stop. Don't go further! This will make us like them eventually".

    Which might explain the lack of anti-hezbollah etc. diaries: We're not expecting them behave any different. But it's heartbreaking to see us becoming like them, and we would expect different.

  •  Ambivalence (7+ / 0-)

    I'm too ambivalent on the broader issues to make any definitive statement.  Your diary makes some good points, but also succumbs to some logical difficulties that other commenters have pointed out.

    To address one point, though, we often lose sight of the fact that Jews are the single most liberal demographic in America.  By demographic I mean any possible category -- race, gender, SES, region, party ID.  Yes, I said Party ID -- Jews call themselves "liberal" at a higher % than Democrats do.

    Who cares?  Well, the point is, I get frustrated with the often sloppy conflation of American Jews with the Neo-Con/AIPAC/Israel Lobby/Whatever apex.  If it's "con" and "Jewish" then by definition it's a tiny minority.  Jews were at the forefront of every progressive movement in modern America -- and a small but disproportionately powerful cadre of assholes in the Bush administration doesn't change the tens of thousands of Goldbergs and Cohens who staff every single progressive interest group office in Washington.

    None of this serves to excuse Israel, of course.  I was simply making a narrow point about one of the issues you raise.

    ~~~~~~ I've always admired your tart honesty and your ability to be personally offended by broad social trends. --Principal Skinner ~~~~~~

    by cardinal on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:00:32 PM PDT

    •  Excellent point (0+ / 0-)

      And thanks to the Jews and African-Americans America is a nation rich in culture.

      "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." - Jim Hightower

      by Hanna for Change on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:37:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  strange statement (0+ / 0-)
        what about all the others or is it just African Americans and Jews who are providers while the rest of us are just consumers of culture?

        I really don't get the statement.

        'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

        by stevej on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:29:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  reflexively opposing war (13+ / 0-)

    Well, in my case I wouln't call it a case of "reflexively opposing Israel", I would call it a case of "reflexively opposing war". But people keep calling that being "anti-Israel" the same way they keep calling those of us who oppose the Iraq war "anti-American". I do believe the people of the Middle East can live in peace if all parties try. Many on both sides don't want to and they each want to blame the other. The blame has to stop, and the calling of everyone who want's peace, "Oh, you're just anti-this or that" has got to stop as well.

    I'd like to think that the last thing that went through the warden's mind, besides that bullet, was how did Andy get the best of him. The Shawshank Redemption

    by William Domingo on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:01:07 PM PDT

    •  yes Yes YES! (5+ / 0-)

      Well, in my case I wouln't call it a case of "reflexively opposing Israel", I would call it a case of "reflexively opposing war".

      Yes!

      Many of us feel this way, and it would be morally inconsistent NOT to object to the current Israeli government overreaction in Lebanon.

      And we can only state our honest, consistent opinions, well...honestly. We have no control over how any other person - Jew, Christian, Arab, White, Black, Male Female, Gay whatever - chooses to characterize that opinion.

      If I say I dont like Bush's policies, I have no control over the Coulters and the Malkins who take what I say and choose to characterize me as an America-hater for holding them.

      But that doesn't make those folks who choose to characterize my heart and soul for their own rhetorical advantage, having no knowledge or understanding (or interest) of either, right.

      Get over to the Green Mountain Daily! What are you still reading this sig for?

      by odum on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:54:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Again (12+ / 0-)

    So if you're counting (and I am) - in the last 300 diaries, there are 23 against Israel, 3 taking a middle position, and 2 pro-Israel.  So bottom line Jews - if you want to come to dKos you have to have a very very thick skin.

    Stop the effin military occupation and there could be less "anti-Israel" diaries.

    And, there is only the MSM and they have  a 100% Pro-Israel bias. Poor Israel. The MSM lets people like  Alan Dershowitz talk and that is quite disgusting.

    Yes, it is ok for other people to criticize Israel (just wish ya'll would ease up a bit)

    As soon as the military occupation ends. Before, not a chance.

    And Rabbi Lerner could find a new record, this one is broken:

    continued resistance by Israel and world Jewry.

    So now the occupation is "resistance". Ok. I'm the emperor of China.

    but in 1948 the world decided that the Jews deserved a state in no small part because of the holocaust

    The World did no such thing. Show me Arab or Muslim states that voted for that solution.

    "I never had ties with a female employee that went beyond professional relations." Moshe Katsav

    by allmost liberal european on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:01:31 PM PDT

  •  integrity (23+ / 0-)

    Yes, it is ok for other people to criticize Israel (just wish ya'll would ease up a bit) and no, criticism of Israel is not automatically anti-Semitic.  However, much criticism does slip into "Jews are to blame" which is anti-Semitic,

    Examples please - I have seen none that fall under this particular criticism. Your entire diary lacks integrity as you use language similar to that quoted, language that implies but pulls back from stating something as fact. Also the link captions are very misleading, checked three of them and the diaries in no way do what your link implies. People here actually fact and link check. You will not get away with Coulteresque citation and referencing tricks here.

    Please argue your case, that is what we are all about but enough already with the 'poor victim' act - that sucks.

    'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

    by stevej on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:05:52 PM PDT

  •  Theocratic State of Israel is wrong (5+ / 0-)

    but neccessary.

    I just read an article in the New York Times describing mass murder of Jews in Poland, not before WWII, not during it, but after it was over.

    Tell Jews, such as me to get over it, nonsense. Germany was the most enlightened educated society in Europe, and they succumbed to the disease.  Read Goldenhagens, "Hitler's willing executioners"

    So, yes, we created a state that would be dominated by Jews, mostly secular Jews, with nothing in common but a knowledge of the hatred that can become a wild fire and consume all rationality in its path.

    So, as a Jew, who despises George W. Bush, I have a problem. And yes, any criticism of the actions of Israel without having your relatives, such as my second cousins, who were incinerated like so much garbage, does disqualify you to understand this issue.

    Other second counsins survived, one to win a Nobel Prize in Medicine.  Oh what a world we would have had by now, had those six million been allowed to trive and make their contributions.

    So, those who talk balance, and rationality, all I can say is that's not the world as it is.  I wish it were, but it is something much darker, much sader-- leaving a legacy that we are seeing in the Mideast carnage this week.

    •  Sorry about your relatives but: (19+ / 0-)

      And yes, any criticism of the actions of Israel without having your relatives, such as my second cousins, who were incinerated like so much garbage, does disqualify you to understand this issue.

      An argument that you would not tolerate if it were about any other group or any other history. This is what really annoys those of us that want a serious debate about the specific issues, we get labelled anti-semite at best or in denial of the holocaust at worst.This really must stop.

      'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

      by stevej on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:15:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not us but rather Jews (7+ / 9-)

        who seem uniquely unable to have this discussion.

        And of course. Too many of them aren't able to be reasonable, or level headed about any of it.

        Apparently, they are the last ones that should be dictating national security policy if this is the kind of discussion we get when it comes down to it.

        I'm so dissappointed in the Jewish folks here on Kos. Their reaction to recent events has been repugnant.

        They have utterly failed themselves and the world.

        Through years of injustice, now topped by this attack on Lebannon, Jews have flushed any sort of moral authority they ever had.

        There comes a point when sympathy no longer masks the evil that the victimized now perpetrate on those who are even less powerful than themselves.

        •  Holy Fucking Moses! (7+ / 0-)

          You know - I am not going to troll rate this, because I think THIS is EXACTLY what FredFred was talking about. So - here's a recommendation for you, so everyone can see it.

        •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Proud SW FL Lib, TiaRachel

          I thought hating Israel had nothing to do with Jews?

          •  disgust and hate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            are not the same.

            no matter how many times you're told that, you will continue to spread misinformation, because that's what you do.

            you are who you are, whatever that's suppose to be.

            you won't be able to make these distinctions, and really you won't be able to carry on any meaningful discussions with those of us who criticize jews and israelis for their support of the current situation, you just aren't capable apparently.

            and that is what it is. there's probably no help for you.

        •  Well stated. (6+ / 0-)

          "There comes a point when sympathy no longer masks the evil that the victimized now perpetrate on those who are even less powerful than themselves."

          Well stated.

          I have an Israeli friend who has sons serving in the IDF. She's an American Jew who emigrated to Isreal with her parents when she was 14. She is horrified by the policies of the Lukid government.

          If Jews in Isreal can be horrified by the violence being perpetrated by the IDF, why can't I, an American gentile, also be horrified by our tax dollars supporting this atrocity?

          I support Isreal AND I am horrified by Isreal's actions in Lebanon.

          •  Israel. (0+ / 0-)

            Israel. Blast. I do know how to spell Israel.

            And I am also curious Proud SW FL lib ... I really don't get your point. Please elaborate.

            •  Are you serious? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk, dianem, TiaRachel

              Let's see ... how about this:

              It's not us but rather Jews (5+ / 0-)
              who seem uniquely unable to have this discussion.

              Or maybe this:

              And of course. Too many of them aren't able to be reasonable, or level headed about any of it. Apparently, they are the last ones that should be dictating national security policy if this is the kind of discussion we get when it comes down to it.

              And to top it off, this:

              I'm so dissappointed in the Jewish folks here on Kos. Their reaction to recent events has been repugnant.

              They have utterly failed themselves and the world.

              I'm sure you'll tell me we "Jews" are just being oversensitive, or maybe provide another pithy antidote about one of your Jewish friends.

              •  Pithy anecdote. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                anonymousredvest18, Petronella

                I would suggest that more bombs are not the antidote for this problem no matter how pithy they appear.

                Perhaps knowing and supporting Israelis who don't agree with bombing Beiruit to smithereens might actually BE the antidote.

                •  I don't disagree with that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TiaRachel

                  I just don't to be told it by smug asshats (not you, the original poster) who conflate all Jews with supporting the bombing - then proceed to tell us we have failed the world.

                  While your anecdotal story was nice, it had nothing to do whatsover with why myself and a few others where so angry about the original post. Didn't mean to take out my frustration on you; however, I am amazed - no stunned - that you and others see nothing wrong at all in his statements.

                  •  Thanks. I appreciate your response. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    anonymousredvest18, Opakapaka

                    I am often disconcerted by my own lack of sensitivity in areas where I perceive myself as enlightened.

                    That's why I asked you to elaborate and also why I appreciate this forum.

                    Being a woman I understand what you are saying about being stunned that others miss the point.

                    Unfortunately, I still have a lot to learn about my own blindness.

                    Thank you for helping me understand.

        •  Thank you WASR (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, lale

          your thinking is one of the reasons I don't post as much nor linger much on DKos anymore.

          Your medieval thinking that Jews are collectively engaged (hence collectively guilty of wrongs.) That was also the thinking in 1933 Germany.
          Very facinating.
          Thank-you.

          Proud Commie or Frustrated Capitalist?

          by vassmer on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:31:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Pleast Troll Rate the Above n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  Get lost, kid. (4+ / 0-)

          You're not really a pacifist. The fact that you can make such a blatantly anti-semetic comment means you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. There are too many people like you who say they are all for peace, but that some other entity or group of people is the problem. That is how wars are started -- the aggressors says they are all for peace, but they say that they must fight this war because this other evil enemy is a threat to peace and must be pacified.

          Germany, according to their propaganda, was never an aggressor nation; it was the evil Poles with their horses and lances who dashed across the border against the Nazi tanks.

          •  kid? i wish. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anonymousredvest18

            pacifism doesn't come into it. i'm not nor did i claim to be a pacifist. far from it. i just think that the u.s. and israel are more often than not, the enemies. i'm just too cowardly to take them on myself. not very armed you see. and the nukes and armor these guys got, the 40 billion dollar budget, they kinda keep me in line.

            i'm an american, but i can plainly see what is right and what is wrong. israel is targeting citizens in reprisal. and if there's justice, they'll be brought up for war crimes.

            but there isn't justice, as we all know, and all of this will probably get a lot worse before it gets better.

            i'm not a pacifist. i think john bolton would make a very good enemy, if i were interested in violence in reality, but i'm not. i'd just get myself killed afterall. and that would be a crime unto the world, to deprive them of my valuable insight and commentary.

            •  Big deal: (0+ / 0-)

              That doesn't tell me anything. Many people in Israel regardless of political persuasion think that more often than not Hezbollah and Hamas are the enemies. They can, in their own worldview, just as easily develop a construct of what is right and wrong. And Hezbollah and Hamas, with their rocket attacks and their calls for the destruction of Israel, would be in the wrong.

              You see how useless those remarks you made were? I could easily counter that with a defense like the above and we would just be making animal noises and going in circles.

              So, what is more important? Assigning blame or stopping the bloodshed?

        •  Jews have many different opinions about Israel (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran, anonymousredvest18

          "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

          by chimpwatch on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:20:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  very true, (0+ / 0-)

            and i find that israelis are much more enlightened, and but of course, it's because they have to live it.

            but lots of americans, jewish or not, they have a different take.

            and it's not wrong to say that here on kos, there has been a big let down by many jews posting on this situation.

            there is a diversity of opinion amongst jewish people, but what has been shocking to me, as an american who has lived overseas in london for quite some time, was the attitude here at kos.

            in real life, i think the attitude of average jews throughout the world is much more liberal that what we see here at kos.

            i have been terribly dismayed at many of the things i've read here. and there is lots of it. there are many active people in the jewish community, and many of them blog, and blog here. many of them get involved with air america for example. that was huge i think.

            but here at kos, we've seen ugliness, and real dunderheaded misinformation and misrepresentation by the more conservative jewish people here. and it's been pretty surprising to see where the chips fell on this issue, the one that really mattered. and i mean really. the chips fell pretty split.

            pretty split. some good, lots that was pretty bad, like some of what's in the diary above.

        •  Now *there's* an anti-Semitic comment (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel, anonymousredvest18

          Most of the Jews who've written diaries here have written diaries harshly critical of the Israeli government and its evil actions!

          You're delusional if you conclude that Jews are unable to recognize and discuss the flaws of Israel.  And by lumping all Jews together with a negative stereotype, you're actually being anti-Jewish.

          -5.63, -8.10 | Libertarian Liberal

          by neroden on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:03:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do you expect Jews to be 'objective'? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran, StuartZ, anonymousredvest18

          I'm sure Darwin or Dawkins would have something to say about that. Surely Jews will be irrationally in favor of their kinsmen, just as Arabs will be irrationally in favor of theirs. I don't see how that will ever change or why it is even necessary that it does.

          What needs to happen is for America, through our unweildy system of checks and balances, to be for ourselves. What I see is that there are many people who are indifferent to the situation because it doesn;t affect America in a visible cause-and-effect way. I see some people who secretly hate the Jews but act freindly towards them in hopes that they can be maneuvered into a "Last Battle". This includes run-of-the-mill Christian weirdos as well as American proto-fascists. i see Jewish-Americans whose heart beats just a little quicker for Israel than for my country America, and I see traditional peacenik and leftist people who veiw Israel as another European colony oppressing benighted brown people.

          If one sees Israel as just another country, stripped of all metaphysical and supernatural considerations (like, say, Northern Ireland) then one would expect us to have sympathy for all sides of the conflict and to work for a generalized peace. Imagine if Britain was to bomb the living shit out of Dublin and Belfast because teh IRA killed a few people. Would Jews, liberals, the Bush administration et. al. react as they have with Israel? I think it's a fair question.

          •  I don't really know (0+ / 0-)

            I do know that DK discussions about Israel devolve into discussions about ``appropriate'' expressions of Jewish-American politics a little too fast for my taste.

            Then again, this happens to feminists, gays, and anybody who doesn't ``support the troops'' here too.  Hmmm...

            Fake Canadians are total hosers.

            by theran on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:02:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Only your issues are serious (0+ / 0-)

        Because you are the arbiter.  Got it.

        Fake Canadians are total hosers.

        by theran on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:57:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Listen to yourself (6+ / 0-)

      How can anyone other than robots be your allies in this fight?

      Do you really expect thinking, objective people to sign up en masse to defend your cause when you a priori "disqualify" them to judge the rightness of your argument?

      And if reasonable, yet non-Jewish people can't decide for themselves what's appropriate or valuable policy for Israel to take, any wonder why fundamentalists Christians and Christianists are rushing to your political aid?

      Think this over.

    •  4 for crediting DJG (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StuartZ, anonymousredvest18

      The unholy pact with the devil that constitutes the agreement between the American Christian Fundamentalist conservatives and the Israeli Religious Conservative Hawks is now reaching the point where massive destruction is the result. Generations of Arabs will be affected by these actions. Turning Beirut into Fallujah Redux is going to be a mistake, a really bad fucking mistake.

      The kidnapping of soldiers reveals a flaw in Israeli military tactics and training. Nevertheless, the incidence of Israeli soldiers dying at the hands of Arab extremists was somewhere on the order of the number of NYC police officers killed in high speed pursuits. It happens, but it's not the norm.

      The problem lies with the hyper-conservative Israeli policy makers and their adherents. Any argument you make in their defense has to accept the notion that their tactics are not efficient, and are perhaps corrosively detrimental to regional stability and world peace in general. Arab extremists are a problem for whoever holds power in Israel. The current strategy is an abomination, not because of who started what, but because there doesn't seem to be a strategy. The entire enterprise seems to be conceived of as a message to the Arab allies that Israel is not to be fucked with. OK. Message taken. Now get used to the next 150 years of Arab intransigence. Of course that's a situation that accrues to the financial benefit of a certain select group, on both sides, who will have cashed in their retirement checks and converted their assets well before the implications of their profound bad judgement play out on the world stage.

    •  I'm not Jewish, and I WILL criticize Israel (4+ / 0-)

      Sorry about your family, but invoking the Holocaust to excuse Israel's destruction of Lebanon and murder of hundreds of Lebanese civilians who have NOTHING to do with Hezbollah is obscene. It seems to me that by using the slaughter of Jewish innocents to justify the slaughter of Lebanese and Palestinian innocents you are dishonoring the memory of the Jewish dead. Israel will be held to the same standard applied to other nations, or she will accept designation as a despised rogue state. Despite what you may think, this is not anti-Semitism. By the way, Jewish suffering is not really that unique. I could identify several peoples who have suffered more than the Jews, such as the Tasmanians. You don't hear much about them, because they were persecuted out of existence.

      "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

      by chimpwatch on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:52:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Soo, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      celticshel, anonymousredvest18

      because my father was in an extermination camp I do get to criticize Israel's actions?  That's mighty generous of you.  Or do I lose my cred because he survived?

  •  Ahhh, the complexities. (7+ / 0-)

    Thanks, Fred.  A good series of comments.  I have tried to avoid posting on the substantive diaries because they do lead to virulent flame-throwing.

    I commented on nyceve's diary & on teacherken's sort of a diary about eve's.  They are personal.  Yours, too, is personal--about how you feel.  I think my point is important:

    Arguing about the policies implemented by certain nation states does not have anything to do with the belief systems of those nations.  It is unfortunate that you feel badly if some diarist or commenter here calls the Likud party a bunch of names.  That is a pretty far stretch for you to feel offended.

    To make this point as silly as possible, please note that Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark & Spain are monarchies (yes, others such as the Netherlands, too, OK).  If I write a diary about the absolute stupidity of maintaining kings & queens would it seem sensible for some Norwegian to claim that my negative comments are anti-Scandinavian or Teutonic-baiting or Aryan-bashing?  I think it would look a little foolish.

    Tak sa myket.

    Impeach. Convict. Deport. Indict. Imprison at the Hague--Milosovic Memorial cell

    by whl on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:18:55 PM PDT

  •  I'm pimping myself here. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anonymousredvest18, Sanuk

    Sorry if anyone's offended, but I think this is just what a lot of people need right now.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Anyone who checks this out will not be disapointed. If you do, troll away.

    Karl (Rove) is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. -Larry Johnson

    by McGirk on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

  •  well (12+ / 0-)

    this site is dedicated to politics.  That includes geopolitics.

    The bottom line is that if a policy is viewed as ineffective, it should be critiqued.  That applies to everyone.  I'm an American, for instance.  That doesn't prevent me from railing against our current policies.

    Israel may mean more to a Jew than America means to an American.  Maybe.  But it's debatable.  It's all part of that unanswerable question of what it means to be an Israeli, and what it means to be a Jew.

    I'm not Jewish, so I can't answer that question.  But if you're going to be a player on the geopolitical stage, you'd better be prepared to take the heat.

    •  Israel doesn't mean more to me than America (9+ / 0-)

      I don't speak for all Jews, of course.

      There are some Jews I've known who were fatalistic, believing that history demonstrates that nations where Jews have lived for generations... where they've become part of the society... that they eventually turn on the Jews when they need a scapegoat.  And therefore Israel is a necessity.

      I've always believed that history is mutable, that things change, and that there was never a place like America before. Some Jews feel this view is naive.

      Many things that I believed would never be possible in America are happening.

      When Bill O'Reilly can say on national TV that "[A] lot of Jewish liberals" think "terrorists ... have the right to do whatever they want," such as "behead people on camera" things have gotten pretty bad.

      But I still identify more as an American as a Jew. And when I see America turning to the right... I think it's part of my heritage to work hard to restore America to a place where it's safe to be a minority.  It's one reason I'm in political solidarity with blacks and gays and Muslims and latinos: it's morally right... and we're all in the same boat.

      While I am trying to take my country back, my government is setting the world on fire.

      by Malacandra on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:08:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely right. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TiaRachel, Sanuk

        And it makes me really sad that the many, many Jewish contributions to American history are largely ignored by people.

        The famous poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty "Give me your tired, your poor," etc. was a message written by the Jewish Emma Goldman to the Jews and other oppressed minorities of the world that America would be their new, welcoming home.

        Flying Squid Studios - Cartoons to Rot Your Brain!

        by Arken on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:17:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I fully agree (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Arken, Sanuk

          I don't really know how to put this into words, so it's kind of difficult.

          I certainly didn't mean what I came across as saying to be anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic in any capacity (I've been accused of that before, which is funny because my best friend is Jewish and my two most serious relationships have been with Jewish girls, including an Israeli emigree).

          The only thing I was really trying to argue against is the "we take care of our own" policy that the diarist was seemingly trying to express.

        •  Emma Lazarus... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neroden

          was the poet. And she was a pioneer in arguing for the creation of a Jewish homeland... before the word Zionist even existed.

          Emma Goldman was the anarchist and revolutionary who famously said, "If I can't dance I don't wanna be part of your revolution".

          While I am trying to take my country back, my government is setting the world on fire.

          by Malacandra on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:43:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Malacandra

        If you're an American, then I'm on your side.

        I have some empathy for the "fatalistic argument", don't get me wrong.  But my view is that those who accept that argument belong in Israel--sooner rather than later.  As you point out, how could one simultaneously believe in the promise of America?

        Let's make our home the place it should be...together.

  •  you are being disingenuous (31+ / 0-)

    Frankly I'm getting a little irritated at the number of diaries that equate "I disagree with Israel bombing the shit of Lebanon" as "I am against Israel".

    At least one of the diaries you characterise as "against Israel" was actually written by a Jew. The others I reviewed in your list (I did not review them all) were also not "against Israel" - they were against this current action.

    That is an enormous difference.

    I am not an American or an Iraqi or a Christian or a Muslim or an Arab. I am against the American invasion of Iraq. I am not anti-American.

    I am not a Jew or Lebanese or a Shiite or a Sunni. I am against the current disproportionate response by Israel against Lebanon. I am not anti-Israel.

    Understand the difference.

    Give us back the America we trust and respect!!!

    by icerat on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:22:57 PM PDT

  •  Blaming All Jews.... (19+ / 0-)

    I am so damn tired of hearing people Blame "JEWS" in general for the moronic warmongering of the Israeli HARD RIGHT.

    If I had a nickle for the number of times I have asked this question "are ALL Americans to blame for the warmongering of the republican hard right" I would be a rich person....

    I support Israel...and their right to DEFEND themselves but I do NOT support the hard right agenda of the Likkud party just like i do NOT support the hard right warmongering agenda of the American neocon administration we now suffer under...

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:25:52 PM PDT

    •  I was going to write that same observation (10+ / 0-)

      I'm completely pissed off at Israel's government right now.
      I'm also completely pissed off at America's government right now.

      But I don't hate Americans.
      And I don't hate Jews.

      (Which is a good thing, because I'm a Jewish American.)

      I think there's a lot of horrifically misguided actions that both these nations are engaged in. Tragic, stupid, violent, shortsighted, and ultimately self-destructive behaviors.

      But that's not all of what America could be. It's not all of what America was.
      And the same is true of Israel.

      I feel deep anger and sadness that two nations that I had once regarded as being progressive agents for good in the world have fallen so low, and so hard.

      I refuse to write off America. And therefore, I don't think I can write off Israel, either.

      While I am trying to take my country back, my government is setting the world on fire.

      by Malacandra on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:54:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Funny (3+ / 0-)

      I can't even think of one instance of blaming Jews and I have read a lot.  I've seen a number of posts about aliyah and the dual relationship - but I presume most of the posters are Jewish.  Maybe I just don't see the really anti-semetic stuff - but I think I would, if only to say - "Whoa!"  The fact is that many people - Jewish and non-Jewish are very, very upset at Israel right now.  Are they giving Hezbollah a pass?  Hell, no.  Are they letting Bushco off the hook?  Nope.  But I think that most of us here believe that we might be able to influence in some small way the way that the U.S. and Israel respond - while we have little hope of influencing Hezbollah.  Most philosophical and religious traditions stress that we have control only over what we do - that is sufficient.

  •  Re: Alan Dershowitz (24+ / 0-)

    Alan Dershowitz's piece in the LA Times today is some of the most disgursting rhetoric published in a mainstream paper I've seen.

    Short Dershowitz: Killing Arabs, not so bad. Killing Jews, tragic. To flesh it out a bit, killing civilians is ok, because civilians support terrorists sometimes through material support.

    I suppose, by Dershowitz's twisted logic, Israeli citizens are legitimate targets since they pay taxes that fund the Israeli army. Dershowitz's position is no different that Bin Laden's: hitting civilians is ok, because they pay taxes.

    Despicable.

    http://www.latimes.com/...

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:27:55 PM PDT

    •  Why this gives me the creeps (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, cassidy3

      This post is exactly the problem (and so far it has 11+.)

      First let me say I believe every human life is precious, and I wish nobody was being killed. But...

      3 questions

      You don't see any difference between someone knowingly hiding a Katyusha rocket in his basement, and a 2 year old girl caught in the crossfire ?

      You believe someone who feels that way is ,"no different than Bin-Laden ?"

      Do you wonder why some people are feeling uncomfortable here ?

      •  Dershowitz's piece claims... (5+ / 0-)

        ...that civilians giving material support to Hezbollah makes them legitimate targets. This is EXACTLY the same logic Bin Laden used to justify 9/11. He said Americans are all tax payers, and are therefore legitimate targets for attack.

        As for a 2 year old Lebanese girl and a Lebanese person holding a Katyusha rocket, sure there's a difference. But if that difference makes the latter a legitimate target, then an Israeli tax payer, or an Israeli who has served in the IDF, is a legitimate target.

        Personally, I reject this line of reasoning: civilians, even if they do provide war machines (be that war machine Hezbollah or the IDF) with material support, are not legitimate targets.

        Now, time for you to answer the above question: do you think  being a tax payer makes one a legitimate military target? If not, then you should be appalled by Dershowitz's piece.

        Russ Feingold for President!

        by Basil on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:31:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You can't equate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LawSkoolPunk, TiaRachel, neroden

          Paying taxes with hiding rockets under your house. Everybody has to pay taxes for things they oppose (like Iraq). Not everyone has to hid rockets under their house.

          •  Fine. Then let's change the analogy a bit... (3+ / 0-)

            ...are people who voted for George W Bush legit targets for the families of people who've been tortured by the US? How about Israelis who voted for Olmert?

            I don't think so. Do you?

            Russ Feingold for President!

            by Basil on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:58:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No they aren't legit targets (0+ / 0-)

              just as Lebanese who voted for Hizbollah representatives, but who aren't hiding weapons under their houses are also not legitimate targets. Are some of them getting hit in the crossfire ? Unfortunately yes.

              There is talk on this site about people blindly supporting Israel no matter what it does. I think there is a lot more blind criticism of Israel no matter what it does.

              I'm sorry, but I can't buy equating the thousands of people who died on 9/11 with Hizbollah sympathizers hiding illegal weapons under their houses. The weapons under their houses are real threats. The people I went to high school with that died on the towers aren't.

              By the way there are consequences to elections as we well know in this country. We as a nation are paying dearly for voting for Bush.  

  •  Wrong. (5+ / 0-)

    Criticizing Israel without being Jewish doesn't make one Anti-Israel. That is a very tired lie that people like yourself never seem to tire of.

    But many of us have.

    And that's the simple fact. But sadly, Jewish people like yourself seem unlikely to ever accept it, because it invalidates your catch-all dismissal of the reality of the situation in the mideast.

    Hardly any of us here are Anti-Israel, next to none. We all believe Israel has a right to exist.

    What they don't have a right to do is behave the way they've been pressured to behave by our corrupt U.S. leadership.

    There is no fair and balanced approach to this issue that is honest.

    Israel is in the wrong, the Bushies are the only ones that have their back... so yes, maybe you're right, maybe Jewish Democrats are just like gay Republicans, out of place, and your values and interests are with the Neocons, because their values are corrupt. Many Zionist Jews seem to think so.

    But the reality is that you have no more right to put Israel's security above America's than a Mexican immigrant does puting Mexico's security first.

    Maybe Jews like yourself do belong in the Republican party? Maybe you have the same values at this point in History. From the behavior of many Jewish people on this site, that's the way it often seems. So I can see why you might say so, that's where what you call "Pro-Israel" folks will find their phony veneer of common cause, just like Joe Lieberman. But you would be fools, just like Joe Lieberman.

    In the end, this debate amongst and about Jews is meaningless. The only thing that matters is getting Bush, Cheney, Bolton, and Rice out of power.

    U.S. leadership is the only ingredient that matters in the mideast conflict because we are the ones instigating the aggression. Israel and Palestine are meaningless in this debate without first a discussion of U.S. policy. Only the U.S. can control Israel, and only Israel has the power to move towards peace if they so choose. And they never will with Neocons in power here at home.