Plain and Simple: Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitism
It is easy to see that many critics of Israel are unquestionably anti-Semitic in outlook and feeling and are merely using a political argument to camouflage a religious, racist, or ethnophobic sentiment.Under cover of “legitimate criticism of Israel” and the condemnation of Zionism as an invasive colonial movement, anti-Semitism has now become safe. Plainly, the distinction these new anti-Semites like to draw between anti-Semitism as such and anti-Zionism is intended only to cloak the fundamental issue and to provide camouflage for vulgar ideas and beliefs.
This is a very shrewd tactic and is most disconcerting not only in its vindictiveness but in its frequency. Jewish philosopher and theologian Emil Fackenheim has outlined three stages of anti-Semitism: “You cannot live among us as Jews,” leading to forced conversions; “You cannot live among us,” leading to mass deportations; and “You cannot live,” leading to genocide. Amnon Rubinstein, patron of the Israeli Shinui party and author of From Herzl to Rabin: The Changing Image of Zionism, has added a fourth stage: “You cannot live in a state of your own,” which leads to boycott, divestment, sanctions, biased reporting, pro forma support of the Palestinians, and calls for the delegitimation, territorial reduction, and in some cases even the disappearance of Israel as we know it.
If this is not unqualified anti-Semitism, then nothing is. As Martin Luther King Jr. observed at a Harvard book fair during which Zionism came under assault: “It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism. … Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews — make no mistake about it.” King understood, as so many have not, that there is really no daylight between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. To deprive Jews of their national haven or to submerge them in a so-called “binational state” with an Arab majority is to render them vulnerable to prejudicial fury, scapegoating, pogroms, and, ultimately, even to Holocaust.
King’s homespun analysis has been confirmed in a report released in the August 2006 issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution by the Yale School of Management in collaboration with its Institute for Social and Policy Studies. The report concludes that the statistical link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism can no longer be denied — a correlation that should have been obvious years ago despite the disclaimers regularly circulated by covert Jew-haters and Jewish revisionists.
In Why The Jews? Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin similarly point out that:
The contention that anti-Zionists are not enemies of Jews, despite the advocacy of policies that would lead to the mass murder of Jews, is, to put it as generously as possible, disingenuous. … Given, then, that if anti-Zionism realized its goal, another Jewish holocaust would take place, attempts to draw distinctions between anti-Zionism and antisemitism are simply meant to fool the naïve.
All that has happened, according to these authors, is “only a change in rhetoric.” Anti-Zionism, they claim, “is unique in only one way: it is the first form of Jew-hatred to deny that it hates the Jews.”
When we turn to the Jewish community itself, we find an analogous dynamic at work among many of its more fractious and insensible members. The issue is only exacerbated by the large number of generally left-wing Jews who have spoken out against Israel, levelling an endless barrage of cavils, reproofs, and aspersions against social and political conditions in the Jewish state or its negotiation tactics vis à vis the Palestinians. The verbal Kassams and textual Katyushas they continually launch are as damaging to Israel’s international standing as Hamas rockets and Hezbollah missiles are to its physical security. Some go so far as to deplore its very existence, regarding the country as a burden on their assimilationist lifestyle, as an unwelcome reminder of their indelible and resented Jewishness, or as a particularist violation of their utopian notions of universal justice.
Many Jews tend to see Israel as a threat to their convenience, a nuisance at best, a peril at worst. They have failed to comprehend the justice of George Steiner’s lambent remark in Language and Silence: “If Israel were to be destroyed, no Jew would escape unscathed. The shock of failure, the need and harrying of those seeking refuge, would reach out to implicate even the most indifferent, the most anti-Zionist.” According to Saul Bellow in To Jerusalem and Back, the great Israeli historian Jacob Leib Talmon was of the same mind. In a conversation with the author, Talmon feared that the destruction of Israel would bring with it the end of “corporate Jewish existence all over the world, and a catastrophe that might overtake U.S. Jewry.”
These Jews who are vexed by the existence of their fallback country are living in a fantasy of personal immunity to the bubonics of Jew-hatred, something that has never ceased to infect the world. In reviling the one nation on earth that serves as a last asylum should they ever find themselves in extremis, they have not only risked their — or their children’s — possible future survival. They have also effectively expunged their own historical identity, aligning themselves with the foul theories and convictions of their persecutors. Victim and victimizer are in agreement. This is nothing less than a form of self-loathing, a rejection of essence, that paradoxically corresponds to the contempt and hatred of the non-Jewish anti-Semite. It is, in short, nothing less than reflexive anti-Semitism.
As Daniel Greenfield asks in an article exposing the campus betrayals of the Berkeley Hillel chapter that endorses patently anti-Zionist organizations, “why shouldn’t there be a consensus that Jewish identity is incompatible with the rejection of the Jewish state?” Following the same line of thought, Phil Orenstein, a member of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs, writes:
For two millennium [sic], the Jewish people have been rejected from countries throughout the world. Now at long last we have the Jewish State, a safe haven that can welcome our people home. We need to teach our youth what the blessing of Israel means to the Jewish people.
In fact, it is not only Jewish youth who have strayed from the recognition of who they are and who the world regards them as being, as if they could find sanctuary in ostensibly exalted ideals or in collaboration with their diehard adversaries. It is every Jew who has embraced the anti-Zionist canard and by so doing negated his own integrity and selfhood. In denouncing or repudiating Israel, the state founded to ensure his perseverance and preserve his identity in the world, he has renounced that same identity. He has disavowed and thus erased himself — precisely as the typical anti-Zionist, laboring to obliterate Israel from the map, has sought to render the Jew defenseless and susceptible to repression or, even worse, extermination.
Updating the Hannukah story, Steven Plaut accurately describes these anti-Zionist Jews as modern Hellenists “ashamed of their Jewishness,” siding with the Seleucid empire against the Hasmoneans who fought for the restoration and survival of the Jewish people. But the upshot is that anyone who objects to the existence of the state of Israel, who would like to have it vanish from the international stage, who wishes it had never been established, who considers it a geopolitical blunder, or who insists on treating it as an embarrassment or a nettle to one’s equanimity, is an antisemite, for he would despoil the Jewish people of its last line of defense in an always problematic world. In What Is Judaism?, Fackenheim laments that “all anti-Zionism, Jewish and Gentile, should have come to a total end with the gas chambers and smoke-stacks of Auschwitz.” Regrettably, this was not to be.
Certainly, one can be critical of Israel, but given its beleaguered condition, surrounded by enemies and constantly under attack, such criticism must be tempered by respect and circumspection. Nor should criticism function as a stalking horse behind which an inimical or incendiary project moves forward. It is when legitimate criticism morphs into anti-Zionism that we know a malign agenda is at work.
King was right. “When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews — make no mistake about it.” It amounts to the same thing. Whoever — Jew or non-Jew — advances a campaign against the wellbeing or the existence of the Jewish state is, quite simply, an anti-Semite. It makes no difference if the hater is a Muslim like Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Christian like Jostein Gaarder, an American Jew like Thomas Friedman, or an Israeli Jew like Neve Gordon, he is an enemy of the so-called “Zionist entity” and therefore an anti-Semite. Make no mistake about it.
Looks like this one was too close to home for you.
Indeed.
“A stuck pig squeals,” after all. If you don’t like the porcine reference, insert your own animal, the meaning is unchanged, but I’m a traditionalist.
Pay attention!
Doesn’t anybody see the writing on the wall?
Once upon a time the world came to it’s senses, all got together and said “Never again” so did the re-established state of Israel.
The world’s anti-semites seem to be as suicidal as the paradise seeking Muslims. Keep on pushing Israel farther and farther into an indefensible corner and there will be another holocaust but this time most of the world will probably be consumed in the fire. It will be an unintended consequence of anti-semitism writ large as usual but sadly something the world seems to desire
and is well deserved. Don’t say you weren’t warned or didn’t see it coming.
See you all in paradise…
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism, at least not plain antisemitism hut something much more sinister.
Antisemitism, old version antisemitism means hating people who behave in a certain way, this being caused by adherence to a faith. We can argue that Judaism is not evil but this kind of antisemitism is not diffrent in nature
of, say, anticommunism. For this kind of ideological antsemite the Jew who has converted to another faith (assumming he believes the conversion is sincere) and no longer behaves like one or the new born baby are not targets of his hate.
And one of the most illustrious Jew saviors during WWII, who took the grearter risks for saving them was a staunch antisemitic Polish woman who told after the war: “I never liked Jews. Neither before, during or after the war. But I wasn’t going to let them being killed”.
Then there is racial antisemitism: the Jew is born, evil and no good behavior, no conversion cn change that so it leads to genocidical antseiomitism.
Now let’s have a look at the “antizionists”. Sudan kills 100 Blacks, Blacks who are not terrorists, for every Palestinian killed by Israel but all their hate gos to Zionists not to the panarabist killers. Sudanese Blacks re being deliberately starved by their Arab opressors while I still have to see a Palestinin looking undetrnourished but it is to Palestinians they send aid. Palestinians dance in the streets upon hearing that a baby was murdered in his craddle and still all the siùmpathy and concernn from the “antizionists” go them instead of to any of the worthy causes in the world. Isn’t that funny that all their sympathy and concen goes to those who have vowed to finish Hitler’s work?
Don’t call them antisemites, call them closet nazis and you will be closer to the mark!
The northern, Islamic Sudanese are not Arabs; they are black folks who style themselves as such for historical reasons of self-flattery.
You hit the nail on the head, well done.
It is interesting to note that Jews, themselves, can be effective anti-Semites. The UCJ – the Reform Jewish movement in the United States – just endorsed, fully, the Obama Administration’s National Socialist Democratic Action Party agenda. That means being anti-Zionist since the 0 has demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt his enmity with regard to Israel.
Don’t forget a number of “religious” Jewish groups as well that fit the description: Neturei Karta (an offshoot of Satmar Chassidim), Toldot Aharon, Eida Chareidit, to name a few.
I read here recently in one of the comments that “Reform Judaism is the Democratic Party with holidays.” Seems about right.
As far as the religious version of anti-Zionism, the basis for that is the Talmudic injunctions that the Jews will not reign in the Land of Israel until the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah). The religious Jews who live in Israel regard the ethnically-Jewish but resolutely secular government as merely another “exile government” run by non-Jews. And, indeed, the history of Israel’s founding bears them out to a remarkable extent: Israel was built and founded by Socialists who hoped that if Jews had a country of their own then they could be a people like any other people; that antisemitism would disappear and so would Judaism, which they regarded as a product of the ghetto and statelessness.
In short, just as the Jews who gravitated to Communism hoped that Jews would disappear into the cauldron of the proletariat, the Zionists wanted Jews to disappear by assuming nationhood. Religious Jews, however, refuse to give up their Judaism to either of these pipedreams. I will, however, note that when members of the Neturei Karta returned to upstate New York after cozying up with Ahmedinejad in Iran, a number of them were beaten up by religious Jews no less anti-Zionist than the Neturei Karta—not because they disagreed with NK’s anti-Zionist views, but because NK had cozied up to an antisemite.
“As far as the religious version of anti-Zionism, the basis for that is the Talmudic injunctions that the Jews will not reign in the Land of Israel until the coming of the Moshiach (Messiah).”
In which case I’ll say that the Karaites probably had a point in dropping it. The Talmud seems to be a twisty mass of contradictory passages built to occupy voracious intelligences in endless back-and-forth debate, lest their idle minds wander about bothering others.
But that’s just the view of a goyishe kopf from the land whose Puritan forebears found that the Old Testament was actually a pretty good commonsense guide to living even for non-Jews (Winthrop come back!) It’s not for nothing that Jews have done their most productive work here, where such fundamental shared thinking enabled astonishing advancement at a pace that left most of the rest of the world in the dust.
Forget not the benefits of Protestant distillation of essentials, nor its work ethic.
I agree with you, but what do do when this cancer has affected one own family? To my own nearest and dearest I have made it as clear as I possibly can that the next time I hear some remark to the effect of “Israel was a mistake” I will get up and leave. But that’s about all I can do, short of leaving permanently.
Solway’s right. People who express hatred for Zionism are dissembling when they claim not to bear any ill will toward Jews. The same people fervently denounce “neocons” who happen to have Jewish surnames, while still claiming the same indifference toward Jewry. Does anyone buy this nonsense?
The label “antisemite” has lost much of its power to stigmatize. It certainly won’t put a dent in the enthusiasm for Ron Paul’s candidacy, particularly among the youth, many of whom have been heavily influenced by antizionist prejudice at universities and ubiquitous antisemitism online. As the global economic situation worsens, antisemitism will intensify, exponentially so if war with Iran breaks out and the price of oil skyrockets.
Expect to hear constant refrains of how corrupt Jews control Wall Street, the media and the government. Expect the Occupy Wall Street movement to resume and grow more rancorous. It might even make common cause with the antisemites who comprise some of Ron Paul’s constituency.
Oh well. At least Jews can be assured that there will always be one country in the world that supports Israel: South Sudan.
Sudan will welcome Israel until they realize they’re there to build dams to control Egypt. Egypt is at the make or break point with their water flow right now today and any lessening of the Nile’s flow would be disastrous. Egypt has openly declared for decades that any interference of this sort is a declaration of war.
Do you realize how flawed your argument is? First of all, you assume that every Israeli falls in lockstep with the Zionist philosophy. That’s obviously not true. So basically you are assuming they all think alike which is very odd and borderline, racist? then you are conflating Zionism with pro-israel sentiments, and vice versa. It’s like saying anyone who isn’t a neocon is anti American. Or anyone who is anti Christian Zionism is anti-American. Or anyone who isn’t a democrat is anti- American. Think before you post.
The U.S. is a Christian nation, perhaps not in law, but at least in history, culture and values. When other nations criticize the U.S. regarding our domestic and foreign policies, do we immediately label them “anti-Christian”? Of course not; that would be stupid, because most of the U.S.’s policies are not rooted in any religion, they are rooted in pragmatism. On the other hand, to say that “Israel shouldn’t exist” is just plain moronic. However, to criticize Israel for its inability to deal with its Palestinian population is completely warranted – they’ve done a terrible job and deserve criticism. But frankly I’m sick of hearing from know-nothing talking heads that any criticism of Israel is de facto anti-Semitism. If you can’t engage in rational discourse regarding Israel’s shortcomings without immediately pulling the anti-Semitism card, go back to the kids table and let the grownups have a real conversation.
Pastor – Exactly what is Israel is supposed to do? By one count, it has offered the Palestinian Arabs a state of their own, not once, but six times, and all they get is a loud NO. You neglect the fact that the Palestinian Arabs don’t want a state of their own on the West Bank, they want all of Israel. They say so in Arabic, and they indicate so on their flag: it has one state encompassing the entire Mandated territory; in their flag, there is no Israel. When I hear equal criticism of Palestinian Arabs for being intransigent, I may change may mind, but right now I would say that David Solway is spot-on.
“But frankly I’m sick of hearing from know-nothing talking heads that any criticism of Israel is de facto anti-Semitism. ” I won’d deny that this happens, but it happens much less often that is charged. People who claim that all criticism of Israel is automatically labeled anti-Semitism are usually trying to hide something, either from others or from themselves.
Go back and read what the author said: “Certainly, one can be critical of Israel, but given its beleaguered condition, surrounded by enemies and constantly under attack, such criticism must be tempered by respect and circumspection. Nor should criticism function as a stalking horse behind which an inimical or incendiary project moves forward. It is when legitimate criticism morphs into anti-Zionism that we know a malign agenda is at work.”
By charging that that any criticism of Israel is labeled as de facto anti-Semitism, you make me wonder whether it is you who can’t engage in rational discourse regarding Israel’s shortcomings.
makre the charge are usually either not listening, If you can’t engage in rational discourse regarding Israel’s shortcomings without immediately pulling the anti-Semitism card, go back to the kids table and let the grownups have a real conversation.
I agree.
Right on! These are the same people that cry foul when people call other’s racist because ” it adds nothing to the discussion.” And now they are doing it to. Reflexively calling someone an anti-Semite because they don’t fall onto their knees before Israel. I have a question: why do you people care so much?
fall down on their knees before israel, and creepy, pure hate, plain as day
Quite Jazzy indeed.
too.
What do you care?
I agree to some extent Israel deserves criticism for some of its methods of dealing with the Palestinians. But, no other nation on earth has the security challenge Israel has! No American president would accept a rockets being shot at its own citizens from Mexico. No leader anywhere would accept that kind of threat against its own citizens. Israel’s security challenge is unique and it is easy to pass judgment against them in easy come easy go America 10K miles away. Furthermore, misguided liberals and moral relativists actually provide diplomatic and moral cover to Palestinian extremists who aim to slaughter Israelis through the most inhumane and brutal tactics that no Westerner should approve of. You think after what Jews experience in Europe in the last 2,000 years hasn’t affected their worldview or hardened their resolve? The Palestinians could have their own state if they wanted, but they just can’t accept to co-exist among Jews. This is the result of an Arabic culture based not on common sense, but on honor. That is why they feel the need to “drive the Jews into the sea.”
I totally and absolutely disagree with your merging of Judaism as a religion and Zionism, which is a social ideology.
Judaism, as a religion, can exist and does and should exist, anywhere in the world. It is true that, within the texts of Judaism, there is a focus on Israel; just as there is, within the texts of Christianity, a focus on Jersualem; and within the texts of Islam, a focus on Mecca.
And, there are many Jews who consider that moving this ideological textual focus on Israel into ‘daily reality’; i.e., moving it from the metaphorical to the real, is an error.
Zionism is a social ideology focused on one geographic space; it is an insistence that defines a geographic space as having also, a social identity and insisting that only the people of one religion, Judaism, live in and own this geographic space. This is rather similar to the other semitic nations, Islam, who consider that only Muslims should be in Mecca or in Saudi Arabia, etc.
Israel is a political entity, not a Zionist entity, but a political entity existing within the rules of international law about nations and geographic domains. It exists as such; if its people choose to make laws, as they have, of the dominance of the Judaic religion – that’s their choice. But, this is not Zionism. As a political construct, Israel is accountable; it can and must be criticized for its actions – to its own people, to other people, to the Palestinians and so on.
To suggest that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is nonsense.
To charge that Israel’s defenders suggest that all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is worse than nonsense. And it is nonsense that is often pre-emptively employed by critics whose criticisim is false, or exaggerated, or is couched in anti-Semitic terms. It is a charge that is seldom if ever made by legitimate critics of Israel making legitimate criticism.
I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my points?
My points are to separate the action of anti-semitism with anti-Zionism. And also, to separate the reality of Israel from Zionism.
Many but not all in Israel are Zionists, ie, those who define a geographic space, a material reality, as ‘essentially defined’. By ‘essentially defined’ I mean that the material geographic reality is viewed as having some innate, inherent social reality. The very soil, water, land..is viewed as having almost a ‘chemical or genetic social identity’. In this case, it’s a Judaic identity.
I disagree with such essentialism. No geographic area, no material reality – whether it be North American native land or Middle Eastern land or anywhere; whether it be rivers or rocks or trees – has any innate social identity. That’s why I disagree with Zionism.
BUT – Israel as a political identity is not ‘essentialist’ but a social construct (not innate). Therefore, as such, it can be critiqued, and to declare, as Dr. Solway suggests, that such criticism is akin to anti-semitism is a deep misunderstanding of Zionism, Judaism and of Nations.
ETAB, I have been reading your posts and I was wrong to address the longer posts I made towards you, I actually agree with much of what you are saying and I was essentially trying to say the same thing. Anti-Semitism is nor Anti-Zionism. I charged Solway with equating two separate ideas and you said it was illogical. Now you are saying it is logical! We agreed the whole time; don’t discredit my argument because you didn’t like what I had to say.
Not to be rude, ETAB, but just what inna namea Elvis dead on the can in Graceland are you going on about?!
“Zionists [are] those who define a geographic space, a material reality, as ‘essentially defined’. By ‘essentially defined’ I mean that the material geographic reality is viewed as having some innate, inherent social reality. The very soil, water, land..is viewed as having almost a ‘chemical or genetic social identity’. In this case, it’s a Judaic identity.” What kind of pseudo-academic nonsense is this? Zionism is, simply put, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which states that they have both a natural right, and a reality earned by force of arms, to an independent and free state in their ancestral homeland. It is no more mysterious or “essentialist” (whatever the &#@% that means) than Garibaldi’s successful drive for a united Italy. As a self-identified Zionist living in a community of self-identified Zionists, I can assure that none of us could recognize our own beliefs in the farrago of manticore feces you keep stating here, but have you ever bothered actually talking to, and – mirabile dictu – LISTENING to someone like us?
No, he hasn’t.
You and “Pastor of Muppets” didn’t read the article carefully. As Solway clearly states:
“Certainly, one can be critical of Israel… It is when legitimate criticism morphs into anti-Zionism that we know a malign agenda is at work.”
Therefore, there’s no justification for you to write the following:
“To suggest that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is nonsense.”
Your complaint has NO BASIS in Solway’s article. And yet “Pastor” made the same complaint. Such hysterical complaints raise questions about the complainer, not the target of the complainer. And they make one wonder why a pattern of such complainers always emerges in the course of any discussion about antisemitism or antizionism.
Gobbo – I disagree with your interpretation of Solway’s article. He clearly merges anti-semitism with anti-Zionism.
My point is that one can, and should, be criticism of Zionism. It is an ideology that defines a material reality as a social reality. That’s illogical.
And, one can and should, be critical of Israel as a political construct, just as one can and should be critical of any social construct – nation, institution, whatever.
One can analyze and critique a religion – there are thousands of texts dealing with such in the Christian and Judaic religions.
To reject a people who practice a particular religion is unacceptable. To critique the logic and ideas of their religion IS acceptable and putting such ‘out of bounds’ (as Islam attempts to do) is unacceptable.
Dr. Solway is not, and neither are you, making these distinctions.
“I disagree with your interpretation of Solway’s article.”
It wasn’t an interpretation I was providing. I quoted the author’s very words to refute your own.
“Dr. Solway is not, and neither are you, making these distinctions.”
You’re the one who keeps failing to make the distinction between REASONABLE CRITICISM of Israel or Zionism, and OUTRIGHT REJECTIONISM AND HATRED as implied by the prefix “anti”. For example, an antisemite isn’t someone merely critical of Jews; it refers to someone who HATES JEWS.
Gobbo you are being cagey in leaving out “such criticism must be tempered by respect and circumspection.” The question then reverts to what many of us are wondering: who gets to decide what constitutes respect and circumspection and what fails and gets thrown into the arena of anti-Semitism?
I will decide these matters for myself and not have the usually liberal refrain of “profiling” or “racism” used to shout me down. Even Israelis differ in their opinions and one cannot forever get away with portraying those you disagree with as simply clueless.
“The question then reverts to what many of us are wondering: who gets to decide what constitutes respect and circumspection and what fails and gets thrown into the arena of anti-Semitism?”
Let me make a few suggestions. Criticism is suspect if (these examples are taken from actual threads at various websites) it:
1. Relies on sarcastic references to or distortions of the Jewish religion, e.g. “chosen people”, “eye for an eye” (or “eye for a tooth”), or that Israels/Jews think that no one else is human or worthy of compassion, or assertions of Jewish supremacism.
2. Relies on analogies to the Nazis or charges that Israel is planning or indulging in genocide or maintaining concentration camps.
3. Demands that the Jewish state alone among the nations forefeit its right to self defense (and thereby continued existence) if it is an imperfect society or makes mistakes — as does every state and every society.
4. Relies on charges of apartheid, deliberately ignoring the legal rights and social advances of Arab citizens, and ignoring the legal and practical distinctions between Arab citizens and residents of the disputed territories (e.g. the nonsense that there are “Jewish only” roads.)
5. Meets Natan Sharansky’s 3-D test – supposed criticism that attempts to demonize, or to delegitimatize Israel’s existence, or that applies a double standard to Israel as opposed to other nations — often the nations doing the citicising.
ETAB
“Zionism is a social ideology focused on one geographic space; it is an insistence that defines a geographic space as having also, a social identity and insisting that only the people of one religion, Judaism, live in and own this geographic space.”
Bullshit.
‘Bullshit’ is a conclusion. But, that’s all you provide. You do not offer the basic premises/reasons that have led you to this conclusion. Therefore, as an argument, your words are mere opinion. As I tell my students, opinions belong in the coffee shop; an argument must provide the reasons for your coming to this conclusion.
I’ll await those premises and your logical argument.
Maybe you should start with facts.
Zionism as originally outlined by Herzl was a formula for adressing the problem of anti-semitism and persecution of Jews in europe. Herzl saw the problem in national terms. The problem as he saw it was europeans could not accept Jews because, unlike themselves, there was no Jewish State.
He wrote “I consider the Jewish question neither a social nor a religious one, even though it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question, and to solve it we must first of all establish it as an international political problem to be discussed and settled by the civilized nations of the world in council.”
Again, neither social nor religious.
The zionists were willing, and did look at other locations for the proposed state. The question is not the “geographic area” involved it is one of status as an equal nation.
At no time ever, to this day does zionism advocate that “only” Jews could live in this “geographic area”.
Basically professor everything you wrote is garbage from your own head with no basis in fact. You actually teach something? That is frightening.
First, spindok, don’t move into ad hominem; stick to the issues.
Because Herzl defined Zionism as analagous to Judaism and as requiring a Jewish state does not mean that this is a basic truth nor does it mean that all Jews agree with him or with Zionism (and there are quite a few versions of Zionism).
My point remains: I disagree with defining a material reality (land) as having a social reality. That has nothing to do with Zionism per se but with any attempt to define a material as a social reality.
The fact that Herzl didn’t consider anti-semitism as social or religious problem (the Jewish question) but as a solvable by setting up a Jewish nation – is his opinion. I disagree with his view – and question its success. I’m aware that other parts of the world were suggested but the bond of Israel and Judaism is basic; it’s in all the texts. Modern Zionism most certainly sees the land base as ‘given by God’, i.e., essentialist.
No-one is suggesting that in Israel, people of other faiths can’t live there, but, it’s a factual reality that the Jewish faith and ideals are dominant.
Again – what’s your point?
My point is that a material reality cannot have a social reality. A tree doesn’t have, inherently, any essential social identity. A land base is not inherently the property of any religious or ethnic group. So, I disagree with Zionism – and modern Zionism is most certainly an essentialist movement, defining the land as ‘given by God’.
But, a land base is most certainly a political construct – which is what Israel is – and as such, critiquing it cannot be defined as always anti-semitic.
ETAB
You wrote “and insisting that only the people of one religion, Judaism, live in and own this geographic space.”
Now you write “No-one is suggesting that in Israel, people of other faiths can’t live there, but, it’s a factual reality that the Jewish faith and ideals are dominant.”
Which is not at all the same thing. In fact it is exactly what you suggested. Now are covering your original statement with sophistry. I live in a country where Christian faith and ideals are dominant but people of other faiths certainly can live here. So what? You might have a shred of credibility if you just admitted you were wrong in the first place.
You gave your own definition of Zionism which I proved incorrect. Now you write “Because Herzl defined Zionism as analagous to Judaism and as requiring a Jewish state does not mean that this is a basic truth nor does it mean that all Jews agree with him or with Zionism (and there are quite a few versions of Zionism).”
So you are just taking points of view such as the land was ‘given by god’ a distinctly non-Zionist construct and labeling them a “version of Zionism”. Those ideas are something, but not Zionism.
Since Zionism is the topic of the article and you do not understand it I fail to see the relevance of the rest of the gobbldygook you wrote about trees and social construct.
spindok – don’t cherry-pick and spin/doc my comments.
For me to say that Zionism, not me, says that only Jews should live in and own a particular spatial domain (Israel) is not contradictory to my claim that ‘no-one (Israeli) is saying that other faiths can’t live there – but cannot be demographically or politically dominant’.
There is absolutely no comparison to, for example, the USA, where the Christian faith may be demographically dominant, because it is not, as is Judaism in Israel required to be politically dominant. Israel self-defines itself as a Jewish state; that is, although there is freedom of religion, Judaism is required to be dominant.
No, ‘my’ definition of Zionism has not been proven incorrect. You have ONE view of Zionism; there are others that are operating and functional within and outside of Israel.
You are now reducing Zionism to mean only that IF people of the Jewish faith ‘own’ a nation, THEN, this will solve the problem of anti-semitism, which is basically Herzl’s view. Apart from this being proven functionally invalid, I don’t think this is the Zionism that drives a lot of the Settlers and hardline political movements in Israel. For you, Zionism only means the nationalist ownership – but that’s a reductionist and narrow view of the active results of modern Zionism.
So explain to me how “zionism” says “only (jews) can live in and own (Israel)”
and at the name time “no one” says (the same thing) is not a contradiction. Zionism is not “no one”.
There may be zionists who hold other beliefs but they do not define zionism. One can be a zionist atheist, a zionist Christian or a zionist orthodox Jew. One might believe that the land was given by g-d but that does not make that corollary beleif a Zionist one.
You are very unclear and keep shifting what you are saying. There are no examples of States that do not have some distinct national character including dominant religion. France is a good example and they have pretty strict laws to protect “Frenchness”. England has a national Church. Many nations give preferential citizenship status to ethnic expats such as Ireland and Germany.
Your protest is only directed at one sort of nationalism – Jewish.
spindok – again, you are cherry picking and spin/doctoring my comments.
I didn’t say that ‘only Jews can live in and own (Israel). I set up an IF-THEN hypothetical construct to explain Zionism as a belief that Only if Jews live in and own a nation, THEN, this will solve the problem of anti-semitism. Equally, your attempt to reduce the meaning of Zionism to mean only Herzl’s view is reductionist. As I said, most people are unaware of the varieties of Zionism – which include both secular and religious versions – and focus only on its agenda of a national home for a particular religion.
I hope you can see the difference in meaning.
And no, the fact that other countries have been associated with religions (eg Christianity), such as France, England, US, cannot be compared with Israel’s specific insistence that Judaism is the dominant religion in the land and its political role in the land (orthodox in parliament, orthodox exempted from military etc). France’s ‘Frenchness’ is not defined by a religion but by its language and secular traditions. The UK’s official religion, the Church of England, is not also a political filiation and there is no requirement for members of the Church of England to be dominant in government.
Nor can you compare a language to a religion, i.e., with the insistence of most nations on a particular language(s) as official.
So, your attempt to compare is weak.
Furthermore, I’m not against (or for) Israel as a nation. It exists; it is a legal entity and as such, I support its legal existence. It is also, as are all nations, a political construct and as such, its political actions are open to debate, analysis, criticism.
I will give you an interesting point. The role of haredim in the IDF and civic life in general.
In any democratic state how do you deal with a religious minority that just does not fit in? The program to create a Haredi based battalion is not going so well now. Not because these people are not fit to fight or any of that. It is because the whole culture of the IDF is based on a certain platform and some things are in conflict.
So there are questions about state and religion in Israel and everywhere else. IDF is recruiting harder in some of the minority populations these days. That is good and there are gong to be issues.
ETAB: “Zionism is a social ideology focused on one geographic space”
You might like to check the wikipedia article on Zionism, especially under “Particularities of Zionist beliefs” (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Particularities_of_Zionist_beliefs). You will find that Israel (“Palestine”) was not the only location considered for a Jewish homeland. Since no one else was prepared to offer the Jews a homeland the Zionists had no alternative but to go back to the original geographical space. Please note, however, that the early Zionists were not fanatically (religiously) committed to that specific space.
There is more specific information at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Jewish_state#Modern_times
If people who claim knowledge of Zionism cannot agree what it is, that is it’s own argument. Case closed.
I’m not sure why Mr. Solway allowed your comment to be posted. It is a nasty ad hominem in every way possible which adds nothing to the discourse here.
While I understand the Jewish people’s issue here, let us understand one thing. This administrations focus is to destroy all it’s enemies, here at home and abroad. On tap are religious people of any kind, countries that don’t bow down to Marx, Engles, Alinsky and Trotsky, successful business leaders, anyone who doesn’t suck at the government teat, the unborn, the elderly and any and all people on the right.
You all are simply the enemies du jour. They will eventually move on to another group. It’s just their style.
for many a millennium
This article does not go deep enough. I’m waiting for an expose entitled “Hating Jews as a Means of Coping; Socially Acceptable Psychopathic Behavior”. Both antisemitism and antizionism are produced by a need to hate. Israel is merely a convenient and socially acceptable target, just as Jews used to be before the holocaust. With regard to “However, to criticize Israel for its inability to deal with its Palestinian population is completely warranted – they’ve done a terrible job and deserve criticism. But frankly I’m sick of hearing from know-nothing talking heads that any criticism of Israel is de facto anti-Semitism.” Allow me to suggest that there is something else going on here; using Israel’s treatment or non-treatment of the Palestinians indicates a concern based on willful ignorance. Why even bother with the concerns of a people that did not exist before 1964 and can claim to be the godfather of modern terrorism in a 50 mile wide seashore far away from everywhere with far fewer problems than virtually anyplace in Asia, Africa and Latin America? Here to we have a need to hate.
The identification of antizionism as merely brutish hate is made especially clear by the magnitude, shrillness and consistently of the anti-Israel campaign. For example a few years ago The Guardian ran an Op-ed on Israel’s Independence by around 50 Jews denouncing Israel’s existence. Quite a bit of effort had to go into obtaining the signatures, writing the article and releasing it at just the right time to cause maximum insult. The technique of using a dirty Jew to attack a dirty Jew goes back to the 11th century Church. Call it by any name, it is someone trying to deal with their own personal demons by hate.
Fortunately the IDF can now provide therapy for this type of behavior.
Isn’t “de facto” anti-Semitism a bit redundant or even nonsensical? Criticism of Israel is de facto (read actual or as a matter of fact) anti-Semitism. As opposed to made up or de jure anti-Semitism?
Jazzy – what is the point of your ad hominem comment? Dr. Solway is indeed a Jew. And a scholar.
You, if we want to consider scholarly background, are an undergrad student, ill-informed in economic and political theory, and at your young age, having to provide child support for two children outside of marriage. Hmm.
Stick to the issues in the article and discuss them.
Lol. You believe anything you are told don’t you, ETab? I am not a student, nor do I have two kids. And what does political theory or economics have to do with blatant lying and extreme distortion?
But Jazzy – are you now saying that you are not a student – when you told us you were? Were you lying? And you told us you had ‘impregnated two white middle-aged women’. Were you lying? Oh, and you admitted that you had little knowledge of economics. These were all your descriptions of yourself, written by you; i.e., they weren’t us figuring you out; these outlines of yourself were provided by you.
So now- you are telling us that you are, basically, just and only, a liar? heh – that’s quite the self-description of oneself. Then you obviously can’t be taken seriously.
I Never said I was a student. You can’t even get your own presumptions straight from reality. The other tripe about kids was an obvious joke.
Read carefully ETab. You made irrelevant comments. All I said was what does my knowledge of economics or politics have to do with this topic.
And for someone who claims to be so wise and knowledgeable you sure buy into silly arguments pretty easily. The title of Mr. Solway’s essay refutes itself. He is equating two separate and distinct ideas; namely, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. The necessary conditions required to be lumped into either category are different. Not only that, can Zionism be distilled into single propositions such as “I think Israel has the right to exist?” In other words, it seems that Zionism is much more than believing Israel has the right to exist, do you agree? So if it is true that Zionism is much more than believeing Israel has the right to exist, is it fair to call someone who doesn’t believe Israel has a right to exist an Anti-Zionist? Absolutely because believing in the proposition “Israel has a right to exist” is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a Zionist. But believing that Isarel doesn’t have a right to exist is completely different from criticizing it. Solway seems to be conflating the two. Lets also think about a person rejecting a view espoused by zionists that is a not necessary condition for Zionism or even a condition all Zionists hold, that person cannot be considered an anti-Semite could they? For example, can someone who believes Israel should treat the Palestinians more fairly be considered anti-Zionist and by extension, anti-Semitic? No. I don’t see why it’s incompatible to treat palenestinians more fairly and be Zionist. Why? Because Zionism is not refuted or predicated upon espousal of the proposition “I believe Palestinians should be treated more fairly.” So Solway, who appears to be the single authority and spokesman for all Jews, cannot label someone anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic merely because the believe Israel should treat Palenestinains fairly. He seems to take any criticism of Israel as anti-Zionist and assumes that Zionism is the only way to support Israel. This is of course fallacious reasoning. It’s a false dichomity. Rejecting Zionism does not an anti-Semite make. It’s not your either a Zionist or your an anti-Semite; on the contrary, there is a diverse range of views one can hold.
*dichotomy, sorry.
Nope, Jazzy – you are misinformed. And, as you yourself define yourself, a liar.
You are lying: I’ve never claimed to be wise and knowledgeable. I don’t define myself. I stick to and discuss only the issues.
You can’t equate two separate and distinct ideas, otherwise they aren’t separate and distinct. Again, try taking a basic logic course. Oh, I forgot, you now say you aren’t a student. Hmm. But since you’ve self-defined yourself as a liar, can I believe you?
Who is saying that Zionism = the right of Israel to exist? The rest of your post is sheer illogical bafflegab and doesn’t deserve an answer. Please, take a basic course in logic. At the moment, you are misusing logical terms and propositions, using fallacious analogies, mixing definitions, and mixing up universals with particulars.
ETAB. It’s quite apparent that Jazzy J is a TROLL. Please quit feeding him.
Sorry, I wish I could delete posts. I am typing on an IPad and I realized how confused my thoughts were in that post. My argument is that Solway is conflating critique of Israel as anti-Zionism. But Zionism is not just the idea that Israel has the right to exist is it? You and I believe Israel has the right to exist, but does that make us Zionists? I don’t think it does. That is what I was trying to say. Solway seems to think anything anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic; but I would argue that Zionism goes further than acknowledging the right of Israel to exist. It means that Israel has carte blanche. For example, whether you or I agree with this, people have criticized Zionism as being racist. But how could allowing a nation the right to exist be racist? It’s not. The point being is that those that call Zionism racist are criticizing it, not because Israel shouldn’t have a right to exist, but because Zionism is much more than promoting Israel’s right to exist.
Of course you can’t equate two distinct separate Ideas. That was my point! Solway is equating Anti-zionism with Anti-Semitism.
*corrected version*
For someone who claims to be so wise and knowledgeable you sure buy into silly arguments pretty easily. The title of Mr. Solway’s essay refutes itself. He is equating two separate and distinct ideas; namely, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. The necessary conditions required to be lumped into either category are different. Not only that, can Zionism be distilled into single propositions such as “Israel has the right to exist?” In other words, Zionism is much more than believing Israel has the right to exist, do you agree? So if it is true that Zionism is much more than believing Israel has the right to exist, is it fair to call someone who doesn’t believe Israel has a right to exist an Anti-Zionist? Only if the proposition “Israel has a right to exist” is a necessary condition to be a Zionist. But believing that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist is completely different from criticizing it. Solway seems to be conflating the two. Lets also think about a person rejecting a view espoused by zionists that is a not necessary condition for Zionism or even a condition all Zionists hold, that person cannot be considered an anti-Semite could they? For example, can someone who believes Israel should treat the Palestinians more fairly be considered anti-Zionist and by extension, anti-Semitic? No. I don’t see why it’s incompatible to treat Palestinians more fairly and be Zionist. Why? Because Zionism is not refuted or predicated upon espousal of the proposition “I believe Palestinians should be treated more fairly.” So Solway, who appears to be the single authority and spokesman for all Jews, cannot label someone anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic merely because the believe Israel should treat Palestinians fairly. He seems to take any criticism of Israel as anti-Zionist and assumes that Zionism is the only way to support Israel. This is of course fallacious reasoning. It’s a false dichotomy. Rejecting Zionism does not an anti-Semite make. It’s not your either a Zionist or your an anti-Semite; on the contrary, there is a diverse range of views one can hold.
The anti-Zionists don’t think Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state. That’s what ‘anti-Zionism’ means. Duh.
Not necessarily. I always understood Zionism as an extreme form of nationalism in which any tactic could be employed to achieve it’s ends. Perhaps that is my own misunderstanding. If Zionism fits my definition then anti-Zionism isn’t against Israel’s right to exist and therefore is not anti-Semitic by extension.
Most people have only the vaguest idea of what constitutes antisemitism. I tried to compile its multifaceted character here: http://clarespark.com/2010/11/14/the-abcs-of-antisemitism/. When we start teaching this history in the schools, I will know that there is progress. Same with the facts of the founding of Israel in 1948. We are severely undereducated and entirely indoctrinated, so that one has to do one’s own research. Even during my graduate education in intellectual history, antisemitism was invisible except for a few in European history.
The answer my friend, and I use this term very loosely, is as simple as this. There is a simple bean which some people call garbonzos others call it chick peas. It may come canned or in dry form; however, they both make the same humus.
Shakespeare said it best, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.” Zionism is a direct extension of Judaism and can not be separated from it, at least by any practicing Jew. Which brings me to any possible synonyms that may more adequately describe you and I have a long list. By the way, anti-Semite is one of the kinder ones.
Suggesting the average Jew is less capable of racism than anyone else in the world isn’t very kind.
To yourself.
Surety Webkey, I don’t have to suggest anything of the sort. I’ll say it outright, Jews, yes Israelis are less capable of racism than any other people I know. Israel has absorbed to date about 50,000 non-Jewish refugees. Most of these non Jews are Moslem and from the Darfur region of Sudan. Not only are they not Jews, they are also black which truly defines race. They have been given asylum from those same people who you claim are victims of racism. Palestinians are Arab Moslems, have always been that. Their culture is no different than any other Arab Moslem. Their language is the same, religion is the same, their culture is the same. Those same people don’t hesitate to kill Christians in Sudan or black Moslems in Sudan or Coptic Christians in Egypt or Christians in Lebanon and the list can go on. These same people have driven out most of the Christians of Lebanon and most of the Christians on the West Bank. Now is the kettle calling the pot black? If you want to argue, you better come up with something more than the tripe you are using. At least give me a semblance of some intelligence.
To quote a friend…. Says the moron who doesn’t think it’s possible for Jews to be racist. Or that Jews are less susceptible to racism because they help black people– a true race! Lol.
Jazzy J is confused. Zionism is not an extreme form of nationalism in which any tactic could be employed to achieve it’s ends. It is the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.
Some have construed Zionism in the way I have laid out, have they not?
Jazzy, let me quote a friend. “I would agree with your side of the argument, but it would make us both wrong.”
Etab, Mr. Solway isn’t much of a scholar if he bought into the fraud about Martin Luther King’s “letter” to the Saturday Review, and made much of it in his essay. And the LINK Mr. Solway provided as “evidence” for Dr. King’s “letter” goes to a crude Christian-Zionist website.
This isn’t to say that Dr. King didn’t have views approximating the letter. John Lewis, who knew him well, said he did (San Francisco Chronicle in Jan. 22, 2002); but Lewis at the time also believed without checking that the letter was authentic, and used it as evidence for his position: a complete circle.
In any case, the letter itself–which plays a prominent role in Mr. Solway’s article–is a forgery, and Mr. Solway should’ve known it, and not misled his readers.
“To suggest that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic is nonsense.”
Please give one example where criticism of Israel was not anti-semitic. Please give one example where the use of the term neocon was not anti-semitic.
Crickets, Crickets.
It’s your job to demonstrate how criticism of neocons automatically ties in to antisemitism. You know you cannot establish that tie without making false or illogical statements. The vast, vaaaaast majority of neocons in this country are christian.
You guys are the Al Sharptons of the right.
Ill give it a shot. Neocons wanted to go to war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam. Wink, wink. Getting rid of Saddam would mean the middle east is safer. Wink, wink. The middle east being safer is better for Israel. Neocons believe Israel should defend itself however it can. Therefore criticizing neocons is anti-Zionist, and according to Solway, by extension, anti-semitic.
Are you seriously suggesting that all criticism of Israel is and has been, pure anti-semitism? Are you removing Israel, as a political construct, from accountability?
When Jews, non-Jews and Israeli citizens criticize the Settlers for setting up illegal outposts and for destroying the farms of neighboring Palestinians – is this criticism anti-semitic?
When Jews, non-Jews and/or Israelis criticize the orthodox who insist that the West Bank must never be ‘handed over’ because the land is ‘essentially Judaic’ – is this an anti-semitic criticism?
When Jews, non-Jews and/or Israeli citizens criticize the water allotments in the West Bank between settlements and Palestinian villages – is this an anti-semitic criticism?
The above are all political criticisms and are not anti-semitic.
As for neo-con and your suggestion that it applies to and only to Jews, I’m unaware of such a hard connection. It was often applied to Bush, Cheney etc and they are not Jews. So, what’s your point?
implacable genocidal maniacs bent on killing 5.8 million Jews in Israel . . .
Your example has nothing to do with his request which was to ask for ONE example where criticism of Israel was NOT anti-semitic. I gave him several examples.
Mark Levin repeatedly points out that the word neocon has become a code word meaning Jew, period. By the way he is Jewish and conservative. What are you?
The fact that Mark Levin says ‘X’ does not make it universally true. I pointed out some examples which falsify the suggestion. There are a lot of non-Jews who have been openly defined as ‘neo-cons’, such as Bush, Cheney, McCain,..even VDH!
As for your question about me – I’m afraid I don’t see the relevance; stick to the issues.
of genocidal maniacs with Israel and its Jews in their sights
ETAB, you don’t listen. Herzel did NOT define Zionism in terms of a Jewish state. Jews in Europe at that time were viewed as an alien ethnic group, regardless of religious belief. And Israel is a state for the Jewish people as an ethnic group, not as a community of religious believers. Indeed, the majority of Israeli Jews are not religious. Not does Israel say that only Jews can live there, nor did Herzl propose that only Jews be permitted to live in a Jewish state. In fact, approximately 25% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs. Arabs vote, serve in the legislature, serve on the courts, practice all professions, and own property. You are talking about a concept that exists in your mind, not about reality. And you ignore any comments that try to point out that fact. Until you are willing to acknowledge that fact, further discussion with you is a waste of time.
I think you’ll have to provide some evidence for your claim about Herzl defining a Jewish state as having nothing to do with the religion but with ethnicity. Judaism is not an ethnicity but a religion…and covers different so-called ethnic groups, whether it be Ashkenazi or Sephardic or other.
The fact that Israel was set up as a Jewish state was for the Judaic religion not an ‘ethnicity’. Both secular and religious zionists argue about the role of religion within the state but, for both, they are referring to the religion not an ethnic identity.
I think it was Menachem Begin who told American Jewiah leaders at one point, when they took issue with an Israeli policy, to ‘remember, it was we (Israel) who straightened your backs.’
The loss of Israel would do exactly as you say. Mr. Solway – worsen the Jewsih condition worldwide, and make Jews vulnerable is ways most, particuarly American Jews, cannot imagine.
As an aside, Tony Judt was one of the worst. Now, Friedman, Goldstone, and their fellow travelers place us all at risk.
Bemoaning “the tragedy of Gaza,” Ron Paul said in a video news interview with Iranian state TV: “to me I look at it like a concentration camp, and people are making home-made bombs, like they’re the aggressors?”
So if you make bombs and kill Jews, you’re not aggressive, you’re a victim of Jewish-run concentration camps. This is what Ron Paul actually believes?
believe it — are you calling him a liar?
Israel and the Arabs:
* Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world’s population, can make claim to the following:
* Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.
* Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin – 109 per 10,000 people – as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.
* In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world.
* In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).
* Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US. oside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.
* Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.
* With an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16s, Israel has the largest fleet of the aircraft outside of the US.
* Israel’s $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.
* On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech start-ups.
* Israel has the largest raptor migration in the world, with hundreds of thousands of African birds of prey crossing as they fan out into Asia.
* Twenty-four percent of Israel’s workforce holds university degrees – ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland – and 12 percent hold advanced degrees.
* Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
* In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia to safety in Israel.
* When Gold Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world’s second elected female leader in modern times.
* When the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day – and saved three victims from the rubble.
* Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship – and the highest rate among
* Women and among people over 55 – in the world.
* Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants
* come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.
* Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as “conflict free.”
* Israel designed the airline industry’s most impenetrable flight security. U.S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.
* Israel’s Maccabi basketball team won the European championships in 2001.
* Israeli tennis player Anna Smashnova is the 15th ranked female player in the world.
* Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers was produced by Haim Saban, an Israeli whose family fled persecution in Egypt.
* In 1991, during the Gulf War, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra played a concert wearing gas masks as scud missiles fired by Saddam Hussein fell on Tel Aviv.
* Israel has the world’s second highest per capita of new books.
* Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees.
* Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.
* Israel has two official languages: Hebrew and Arabic.
* Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer.
* An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment.
* Every year in U.S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.
* Israel’s Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used the view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.
* Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with congestive heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart’s mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.
* With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).
* In response to serious water shortages, Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.
* Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.
* Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per
* 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany.
* With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.
* The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.
* Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel.
* The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.
* Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.
* Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.
* The technology for AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.
* A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct – all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.
* An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California’s Mojave desert.
* The first PC anti-virus software was developed in Israel in 1979.
The Arab World:
*With nearly 1/5th of the world’s population can make claim to the following:
* The Arab Basement has the LOWEST ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.
* Arab countries produce fewer scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin – 1 per 100,000,000 people – as well as the lowest per capita rates of patents filed.
* In proportion to its population, the Middle East has the smallest number of startup companies in the world.
* In absolute terms, Arab nations have the smallest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except Northern Siberia.
* Ranked #2 in the world for lack of venture capital funds right behind the South Pole.
* Arab Countries have the lowest average living standards in Asia. The per capita income in 2000 was under $20, 00 exceeding only that of Sub-Saharan Africa.
* With an air line fleet of over 150 old Junks, Saudi Arabia has the funniest fleet of aircraft outside of Russia.
* The United Arab Emirate’s $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.
* On a per capita basis, Arab Countries have no biotech start-ups.
* Less than 1 Percent of the Arab workforce holds university degrees, ranking second lowest in the world, after Easter Island, and none hold advanced degrees.
* Arab nations are some of the only genuine medieval kingdoms left on earth.
* Arab lands can boast the SECOND HIGHEST ILLITERACY RATES ON EARTH
* Has the world’s lowest number per capita of new books
*Yemen is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in the number citizens who cannot read and write.
* Arab lands have fewer museums per capita than any others.
Here are 10 reasons to love ‘Palestine’ and why I am proud to be a ‘Palestinian’
1. There is no such thing as Mother’s Day. No worry about cards, gifts and expensive meals. There is no honor in being a woman in our culture, so there is no reason to devote a day to her. We do, however, get to enjoy watching our fathers beat our mothers senseless for the slightest real or imagined infraction. Also, if Dad suspects that Mom spoke to a strange man in the street, he gets to kill her to preserve the family honor!
2. Weapons. Every child, from the time he can grasp an object, is trained to feel comfortable with a rifle or pistol in his hand. And every Palestinian has a weapon: a gun, a rocket launcher, a pound of C-4. What good are hands if they aren’t used to kill?
3. Hate. Boy, we love to hate. Hate is the very basis and foundation of our culture. From the time a child is old enough to understand language, we teach him to hate. Hate Jews, hate the West, hate his fellow man and most of all, hate himself. We have no love songs, we do not preach love, the word love does not appear anywhere in our society. Hate is the fuel that runs our motors.
4. Death. The moment a Palestinian Arab child is born, his parents begin to plan his death. How will he die? Will he be struck by an Israeli bullet while being used as a human shield by Palestinian gunmen? Will he get shot while throwing rocks at Jewish soldiers? Will he be packed with explosives and sent to blow himself up, killing others? Or will he merely be one of the many Palestinians murdered by other Palestinians in the normal course of daily life in the death-culture of the Palestinian Arabs? Who knows? That’s part of the thrill.
5. Unemployment. Palestinians used to have jobs, working in Israel. But then, our leaders had a brilliant idea: suicide bombings! For their own protection, Israel had to close its borders, preventing Palestinians from going to their jobs, so they could sit around unemployed and blame the Jews for it. What great fun to be your own worst enemy!
6. Martyrdom. Who in their right mind wants to be a martyr? Among normal people, a martyr complex is considered immature and obnoxious, if not downright crazy. With us, it’s the central syndrome of our society! Hey, look at me, I’m going to kill myself and become admired! And then, when we do kill ourselves, instead of being considered pathetic, we DO get admired! It’s a whole complete cycle of sickness! American kids collect baseball cards; Palestinian kids collect martyr cards (really! no joke!).
7. A feeling of entitlement. When Israel came into being, we declared war. We lost. We fought again. We lost. We fought again. We lost. Israel had the right to kill us all (we sure would kill all of them if we got the chance). Instead, they allow us to live on land they conquered. But we can’t leave that alone. We have to claim entitlement to live on land that we lost in 6 wars. Since when does the loser of a war get to claim the land he fought over? They don’t. But we do. Not only that, but we happily kill our kids over it! Hey, what’s more important – a chunk of dirt, or some worthless kid who isn’t going to amount to anything anyway?
8. Uselessness. The Jews have won more Nobel Prizes than all other ethnic groups combined. Their contributions to science, art, literature and the humanities are far out of proportion to their population. What have Palestinians produced? Nothing! Not a thing. We don’t do anything productive. We’re too busy rioting and killing and chanting and screaming and calling for everyone’s death. And we blame the Jews for it, as though the Jews stop us from being productive.
9. Friends. The Palestinian people sure know how to pick ‘em. Saadam Hussein. The Taliban. Adolf Hitler. You name a psychopath, and we embrace him. And look who our supporters are! The American Nazi Party. The KKK. Just check their websites and see how they stand in solidarity with us. When you support the Palestinian “cause,” you’re in real good company. Bring your white sheet!
10. Freedom. The biggest laugh in the world is when people call us “freedom fighters” or they say we’re fighting for our freedom. Take a look at all 22 Arab countries. Do you see any freedom there? Well, that’s what our country will be like if we ever get one. It will be a dictatorship run by armed, masked thugs who will kill anyone who dissents. Just like we are now. Freedom?! LOL! The word doesn’t even exist in our language. Hey, just like George Orwell said: “Freedom is slavery. Long live Big Brother!”
Remember: Israel is bad! – Its existence keeps reminding us what a bunch of losers we are.
Typical anti-Semitic hypocrisy I see here…
So are the Israelis the natives, like the American Indians? Or are they colonizers?
No one else is expected to give back land, so why should the Israelis?
This is how anti-Semitism works…
Whatever your argument, the Jews loose…
J’accuse!
Am Yisroel Chai!
PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said this in 1977:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
The article below was written 43 years ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem.
Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed.
Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.
There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia .But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.
The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway.
The Jews are alone in the world.
If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts, and Jewish resources. Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.
And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.
Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.
Eric Hoffer
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let’s get a few things straight:
* As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn’t take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don’t want it back.
* If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don’t want it back.
* If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don’t even exist any more, so they can’t want it back.
So, going back 800 years, there’s no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel’s title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:
* The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
* The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
* The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
* The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
* The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
* The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:
* The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
* The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
* The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
* The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
* The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
* The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
* The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
* The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
* The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The territories comprising all other “Arab” states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century,
defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence.
There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no “Palestinian” people and no “Palestinian” claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name “Palestinian” referred to the Jews of Palestine.
The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that “aboriginalism”—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?
Back to the Arabs: I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs’ tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?
To answer that question, let’s look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we’ve discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted.
The Jews’ willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN’s 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN’s partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel’s urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel’s existence (achieved in ’48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in ’67).
The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been “stolen” from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel’s destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as “oppressors,” and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.
And where do their safety pins and ball point pens come from? Guess what, they don’t have the manufacturing base.
Who are you really Ian? Seriously what is you background? Are you really Palestinian?
are you?
People in favor of the establishment of the state of Israel frequently use examples such as citing the provenance of Jewish folks in that land going back 2,000 years or more. There are many other facts cited as well.
That is called an argument.
When one uses an argument one is vulnerable to counter-argument. That is not anti-Semitism but debate and one which those who use argument open themselves up to and not the other way around. It is the flip side of the argument that says the Palestinian Arabs are an invented people which again opens one up to the entire idea behind debate and closes it at the same time – the debate then is portrayed as a one way street and that is not debate but absolutism.
No matter where one falls within this argument, it is utter nonsense to portray legitimate debate as bigotry. This is the same “argument” that suggests people disagree with Obama because they are racists. It’s hard to imagine a more intellectually bankrupt and childish view of the world.
One should not put forward reason and logic and facts unless one is vulnerable to reason, logic and facts. In any event, merely doing so exposes one to such considerations whether one likes it or not. Ignoring this doesn’t make it go away. If merely questioning the events that led up to the creation of the state of Israel or its wars and subsequent policies not only puts me in the realm of Jew-hatred but of ignorance of my own Jew-hatred, that is an awful lot to put on a human being.
As for Rance in No.11, I could use the example of the Straits of Tiran in 1967 and the true disposition of Nasser’s troops and accompanying military intelligence as an example of criticism of what Israel did that doesn’t amount to racial hatred. I might be wrong in adding up those facts but that doesn’t make me ignorant or a racist.
I could cite 100 other things that are legitimate criticisms that don’t rise to the level of Jew-hatred. The fact is that those who buy into this article have set the bar so low that a cloud passing over the sun makes one anti-Semitic.
Meanwhile you are letting mental cases like Hamas and Hizbollah off the hook by telling those who may not have ever read the Hamas founding charter that if your standard is so low for even Jews on the Democratic Left, then maybe Hamas and Hizbollah aren’t so bad. This is really, really dangerous if one feels international support is crucial to Israel because you are compromising your own allies. Do you really want to put an American with a lively sense of debate on the same level with suicidal, bigoted and uncompromising maniacs?
No wonder some in the Western media have come to believe the Muslim Brotherhood are moderate since those media voices themselves have been portrayed as racist and bigoted over mere disagreement and know they are not. It is not a great leap of logic to assume the same standard has unjustly been put on the MB. You are doing a better job of isolating Israel than the MB since the for us or agin us doesn’t leave much room for maneuver.
“The fact is that those who buy into this article have set the bar so low that a cloud passing over the sun makes one anti-Semitic.”
Only if the cloud in question appears to be giving the Hitler salute.
In all seriousness, I don’t know why you and several others here are so quick to accuse the author with statements like the following:
“it is utter nonsense to portray legitimate debate as bigotry”
Solway clearly states that legitimate criticism is NOT hatred:
“Certainly, one can be critical of Israel… It is when legitimate criticism morphs into anti-Zionism that we know a malign agenda is at work.”
Why is it so difficult for some people to accept that those who reject Israel’s justification for existing (implied by the word “antizionist’) just might be antisemitic? Nobody’s saying that reasonable criticism makes you a bigot. Why the need to put words in Solway’s mouth? Why the instant dismissal of any suggestion that antizionism represents a deeper hatred?
It would be nice if the folks who disagree with Solway’s premise would stop distorting his argument into something it isn’t.
But Solway and others decide what is “legitimate;” don’t you get that? What you said is just semantic gibberish.
At first you claimed that you “could cite 100 other things that are legitimate criticisms that don’t rise to the level of Jew-hatred”.
You then bemoaned the fact that “Solway and others decide what is “legitimate”.”
In effect, you’re saying it’s ok for you to decide what amounts to legitimate criticism, but not Solway. What makes your powers of judgment superior to his? Perhaps what you regard as legitimate and not rising to the level of Jew-hatred would indeed be considered hatred by others.
I think Solway did indeed “decide” that the specific criticism that renders one an antisemite is the rejection of the belief that Jews have the right to restore their ancestral homeland so as to provide themselves a place of refuge in a traditionally hostile world. If that’s the specific criticism which he regards as a sign of Jew-hatred, then he really isn’t saying anything controversial and some folks are clearly over-reacting.
Nice try but you’re engaging in word games. My idea of legitimate is legitimate as in open debate in which I invite counter-argument without laying ignorance, stupidity, and racism on my opponent rather than countering their argument with more reasoned discourse. The author’s idea of legitimate is what he decides otherwise it’s off to the anti-Semitism car wash for a nice cleaning.
It is legitimate to question whether the Straits of Tiran were actually closed in ’67 or whether Nasser only declared they were closed or whether they amount to one and the same thing. I can see either side of the argument as having legitimacy without dragging in bigotry. And I can cite 100 other things such as what makes a country invented or not as legitimate debate.
The view I am against is that one’s position on a debate is itself illegitimate and that it equates to hatred. No doubt there is hatred out there and if one is so against it why gobble up more by starting at shadows? It leads one to believe that there is some comfort in assuming the moral high ground quite disconnected from world events.
I’ll tell you this: I wouldn’t want to part of a “protected” group and would assert my right to be thought of as just as stupid, brilliant, hateful, loving, jealous, murderous and kind as any other sonuvabitch on the block as I am not going to contribute in any way, not even an ostensibly positive one, to being considered an “other.”
Unless you can point to institutional, legal and approved acts against Jews by the West with names and faces I’d shut the hell up and concentrate on the Middle East, its emigre’s and some creative ideas on how to end the madness rather than contribute to it by painting half a world as Jew-haters.
Exactly!
Israel is not an argument it is a fact.
Zionism is really a misnomer anymore. It was an idea and is now a reality.
What confuses people is that they cannot understand the difference beween criticism of one Israeli policy or another, which is fine, and anti Zionism which is denial of the Jewish state altogether.
Well then stop posting massive arguments laying out the history and genesis of this and that and provenance of Israel and just say this is my side right or wrong. By doing the former you’re inviting a counter argument and then saying there is no argument.
I refer you to Orwell’s “1984″: see: “doublethink.”
I don’t.
Where I have seen them they are generally in response to other historical arguments. i.e.” Israeli Jews are all colonizers who came from europe in the 1940′s.” This is factually incorrect and there is legitimate reason to set the record straight.
I agree that Israel supporters should stop apologizing and falling into traps.
Well I guess the problem is in finding the 12 people in the world who believe ” Israeli Jews are all colonizers who came from europe in the 1940′s.” It’s pretty easy to argue against what virtually no one believes and everyone would agree is false. Do we really want to engage the 5 people who act like Jews came to Palestine like the allies at Normandy? Let’s not whip the word “legitimate” too far in the other direction or we’ll be having debate about the Knesset being sorcerers. In fact those only exist in Muslim entities and my back yard.
You are quite right about avoiding perceptual traps as setting them often leads one to fall in them.
reason, logic, facts, argument, and debate, per se, but their foul stench in context that tells the tale
The idea that only you and yours can truly see that “foul stench” is the source of the problem. It’s the same thing as saying what other people think doesn’t matter and oh, by the way they’re racists too.
beating up on Israel whose every fault is a death sentence
You forgot to drag in the Crab Nebula: it’s neutrality is suspect.
Thanks for your comments, Sam Fallnow – all excellent points.
two peas in a pod
You forgot anti-Semitic, self-hating, kapo, useful idiot, intellectually jealous, bigoted, racist, code-for-hate, pod.
so eat ‘em all up, for baiting people under the gun
not me, so eat ‘em
You are right, not every criticism of Israel is bigotry. However, when Israel is continually criticized for it’s responses to agression, without reference to the reasons for Israel’s behaviour, or when egregious acts of violence (eg, the Syrian massacre of over 5000 people) slips the media’s attention, while it castigates Israel for far less destructive behaviour, that can only be construed as Anti-semitism.
As an Evangelical Christian, I have declared myself a supporter of the sovereign state of Israel loudly and clearly for some time. Two years ago, I would have disagreed with David Solway. But not now.
The last two years, I have had the unfortunate displeasure of meeting others, some claiming to be Christian or Jew, but most militantly atheistic, with an uncanny ability to twist any form of Zionism into being synonymous with monster, even anti-American. I have been labeled: (1) Jewry lover; (2) Islamophobe; (3) appeaser; (4) hater of Palestinians; (5) even anti-American – as I am actively endangering America for its military aid to Israel.
The conversation generally goes something like this. The Mossad, in conjunction with neocons, plotted the 9/11 attacks in order to trick America into doing Israel’s “dirty work.” Sometimes, comments are linked casting Benjamin Netanyahu as a fascist, crushing the ability of free expression in Israel. There are the frequent videos of The Brother Nathanael Foundation, replete with proof of Jewish dominating influence in all facets of America life. Numerous examples are provided of how Jews have bullied the Christians in Nazareth and Bethlehem – Christians now 2nd class citizens forced from their homes. And then there is the always predictable J Street media guide link, calls to quit pandering to Israel, interfering with ‘Palestinian Peace Process’, and preventing the two state solution.
Some, but not all, are rabid Ron Paul supporters. Most voted for Obama, but that rule doesn’t always apply either. It’s a strange brew of folks.
There is one common theme. Israel is the instigator of most of the world’s problems. And though never stated in writing, there are the tactic hints that the problems will never be addressed as long as Israel is considered a Jewish state.
No one outside a few unlocked fringe lunatics believes Israel is the source of much of the world’s problems. That is a massively bloated straw man argument which is then of course easy to side with.
Why not just write that you’re against pulling the heads off of kitties and making dolphin salad? There’s so much of that.
says 59% in the eu think israel’s a threat to world peace, that’s a lot of fringe lunatics
Saying Israel is in a tinderbox with unknown consequences for war in the region is a lot different than saying Israel is the sole wrong-headed and aggressive player. And pointing out that Israel can in fact unilaterally declare a Palestinian state tomorrow by simply leaving the West Bank is not saying they should do so, merely acknowledging Israel has the power to do so.
In fact Israel does have the right to exist and despite it’s power to act unilaterally I would say it is the Palestinian Arabs at fault here. They have chosen to make the issue of a population exchange of a few million people to be the worst tragedy of all time and bear their own responsibility for allowing their small cause to be blown out of all proportion to reality and to be a cause across Islam.
There have been similar population exchanges throughout modern history without people bitching about them throughout all eternity. You just can’t always have things your own way, especially when you have thrown the dice of war and failed. To me failing to be pragmatic and rational rather than turning the whole thing into a crusade lies at the feet of those Palestinian Arabs.
isn’t for a state, it’s for the extermination of the jews, and you know it
Sam, with one post, you have demonstrated you have two glaring shortcomings: (1) misperception and lack of clear understanding; (2) a confusion to what represents a logical fallacy, using the tiresome cliche of ‘straw man’ when and where it doesn’t apply.
Collectively, your ilk plays a significant role in why we are forced to have this very discussion, and probably no small role in what the author was attempting to address.
Thanks Tex; usually it takes two posts.
“No one outside a few unlocked fringe lunatics believes Israel is the source of much of the world’s problems”
I’m sure you think this statement is “legitimate”. Sadly, no one outside a few unlocked fringe lunatics would agree with you.
How did you manage to escape, by the way?
You’re still playing word games and indulging in semantic gibberish as if it is clever. Compose a thought and present it instead of indulging in misaimed pedantry.
I have met two intellectual anti-semites in my life. The second only recently. Both can sit you down and give you chapter and verse, transmitted to them from their fathers and grandfathers then reinforced through their ivy league professors, on just why the Jews are despicable thieving xenophobes who rob any society they ‘infect’.
The original was from an old German family who though third gen American spoke fluent german. The second is a well know American author and scion of the Left. He has never been to Israel except to flit through on his way to Ramallah.
Personally I was once of the American evangelical pro Israel zealot flavor but since a three week visit to Israel in 2005 have lessened my enthusiasm. I found Israel a tedious rather dirty place. I found the Israelis fractured as a people and way too intense. Many of them wholly disgusting. I pray to God for them. I support Israel unequivocally and I despise all anti-Semites including and especially Arab anti-semites.
This article was incorrectly titled.
The title proposition, in the form of “x=y” (and by extension y=x) is a categorical statement. What I mean is that the title, read plainly, states that anti-Zionism is per se anti-Semitism. There’s two problems with this:
1. Anti-Zionism, opposition to the idealized religious justification for Israel, and an anti-Israel secular policy are not the same thing. For example, I think there’s something a bit silly in the moralistic and “historical” arguments advanced to give the Israelis a “right” to the land, but I’m perfectly willing to support them as allied in interest to the U.S.
2. More importantly, the only piece of statistical, logical, historic, or even anecdotal evidence in this piece is a vaguely referenced study pointing perhaps to a statistical correlation between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions. Even a 95% correlation between the two dispositions (and I suspect the actual ratio is much smaller), wouldn’t justify a categorical statement that the one is defined by the other. Thats a logical, not a statistical assertion.
This may seem like a tiny distinction, but its critical. Conservatives frequently bemoan how any opposition to liberal social or economic policies is generally equated automatically with racism classism. There, one could probably find a statistical correlation, if only in the other direction (most racists probably oppose welfare or affirmative action). Such statistical tricks are misleading, and I would submit, irrelevant.
Here we see the exact same argument being leveled by a conservative against the other side, with the exact same effect. Its a sleazy rhetorical trick to “shut down” the argument by trying to make the opposing position socially untenable. The simple fact is that whether the anti-Israel is argument is partially supported by racists (and I think it probably is) has no bearing on whether it is, in any morally or practically useful sense, right.
18. Drive By Logic
1. Anti-Zionism, opposition to the idealized religious justification for Israel, and an anti-Israel secular policy are not the same thing.
Except that zionism is not a religious justification at all. It is explicitly secular and in fact was rejected by most religious Jews, some of them to this day.
Only some versions of Zionism are so-called secular. Herzl claimed that his was, and there are some sets of orthodox Jews who even reject the current state of Israel as counter to the Torah. BUT – there are other sets of orthodox who consider that Zionism IS a religious movement, fulfilling the predictions of the Torah.
It’s not as simple as you outline. What puzzles me is how you can define setting up a nation within a particular religion and as a home for members of a particular religion – as secular.
State of Israel exists as much for someone like me — paternal Jewish grandparents only, prefer the New Testament to the Torah, likes to eat pork, etc. — as it does for an observant Jew. That is my understanding anyway, that I have the same right of return. And I think there are lots of “Jews” like me in Israel, particularly Russian emigres. And that is why zionism is primarily a secular movement.
Exactly, Drive-By Logic. Good points; logically and statistically accurate.
I think therefore I am a racist.
don’t flatter yourself
His was a thought, yours was not; ergo you just insulted yourself.
Tex Taylor,
Right now, God begins to separate the sheep from the goats. Funny things goats, you just cannot convince them to turn into sheep.
nueces, I found your last post most interesting. The fracturing I have suspected. Still, I have not had the fortune to travel to Israel but it is on my bucket list.
Now, let me preface this with saying I know where I must stand which is not open to debate. But this argument is confusing and frustrating to say the least.
I have actually found myself trying to reason with people who call themselves Jewish (most I would actually call atheist or agnostic), with me in the defense of a country I have never visited, and them with the most hostile, anti-Israeli bent that would rival radical Islam. First, my opponents always open with the semantic argument calling to my ignorance of custom and history. Then the Israeli fault finding starts. I get the feeling if I were to leave the room, calls for Death to Israel might be invoked.
I’ve even framed the narrative not of faith, but practicality in defense of America. Ally, intelligence gathering, common enemy, the Great Satan – no matter, the conclusions are always the same. Israel is the stick in the spokes and it’s bad for America.
And then I get the even more irritating folk, the Replacement Theology of Christianity, where Christians are now God’s new chosen people and Jews have been abandoned to the winds, as if the covenant God made with Abraham was long ago now null and void. Though I find them fewer in number and easier to debate, it’s actually mystifying to me how people who consider themselves pious, so easily duped.
Often, these ‘Christians’ and I use that word loosely, prompt me with: “Who killed Jesus?” And being I know the answer they want as response, I reply, “you and me.” And that only makes them angry, giving me a degree of understanding of the history as to why Jews more than a little suspicious of motive.
I do know this. These Jews I debate are cutting their own throats. Whoever they believe they have allied themselves with, will not be found when it all hits the fan. And these liberal Christians whom I debate are woefully confused and dangerous to us all.
I believe time does indeed draw short.
Watch Ron Paul being himself.
http://blog.standforisrael.org/articles/ron-paul-gaza-is-like-a-concentration-camp?s_src=SFIEN&s_subsrc=EN11201XXEXXA
I have a simple formula for assessing whether an argument is likely to be fundamentally anti-semitic.
1. If the person making the argument says he hates the Jews, I can still listen, for there may be some merit left in the argument, and hate is very common for a group with the highest aggregate IQ in the world. What is difficult to visualize and work with is often dismissed or derided.
2. If the person making the argument says he loves the Palestinians, I laugh and turn away, for he has left reason entirely, and will take any position on the basis of sentiment alone.
Lovely: that was the only thing left out – non-Jews are jealous monkeys who only approve of other monkeys. Otherwise smart people (and there is apparently only one of these) go straight to the ovens.
By the way what are those lights in the sky at night? Could you find a Jewish guy to come ’round my place and explain it cuz I’d sure as hell like to know and I find them rather startling. Could they bring around one of those Nobel thingys too cuz I hear they’re shiny and I like shiny things.
Just not in the sky.
Israel hatred as a form of selective Jew-hatred: In World War Two, Hitler and the German Christian Nazis marched into country after country and demanded that the Christian citizens of those countries help him kill all the Jews. They often answered “We’ll gladly help you kill all the Jews here, except those born here. We consider them to be “our Jews”, and we do not want to help you kill them”.
The current liberal fanatic obsession with the destruction of Israeli Jews has similar features. The liberals in America and Europe, who are so determined to kill all the Israeli Jews, do not particularly hate American and European Jews (“our Jews”), and to the best I can tell, if the liberals succeed in killing the Israeli Jews (G-d forbid), they will leave the American and European Jews alone, and move on to their next target to demonize (first came white South Africa, then Orthodox Christian Serbia, and now Jewish Israel).
In this manner, the liberal hatred of Jewish Israel is a form of selective Jew-hatred, but is not exactly the same as the all-encompassing Jew-hatred of the German Christian Nazis, the Catholic Church, or Islam.
And because it is a form of selective Jew-hatred, it allows the delusional liberals to rationalize, and claim “I don’t hate all Jews, or even Israeli Jews per se, but only the evil, racist, colonialist, imperialist, nazi practices of the Israeli government, which by far is the most evil government in the entire world, and the only one which must be destroyed.”
There is no “current liberal fanatic obsession with the destruction of Israeli Jews” and it is not the 1930s. Like many on the liberal Left, you need a new clock as it also true that white baseball leagues, Jim Crow are done and the reports of slave ships disgorging cargo in New York harbor this very minute are untrue.
all over again, only worse this time, and you mock it with snide wisecracks and jew-baiting
I mock you for making false analogies and invoking histories long dead as if they are current. Success is a forward not backward looking proposition.
you always were a big fat fool, john falstaff
“They often answered “We’ll gladly help you kill all the Jews here, except those born here. We consider them to be “our Jews”, and we do not want to help you kill them”.”
Wow. I usually have precisely the opposite reaction. Netanyahu? Mensch. Shining example of the type of leader America needs. Israel? Takes border security and national pride seriously.
Bernie Madoff? Abe Foxman? Roman Polanski? Liberal Hollywood producers? Oven magnets, the whole lot of them.
Though it’s kind of unfair, given that American Jews also contain Ilana Mercer, Steven Spielberg, Nicholas Stix, Dennis Prager, Peter Schiff, Stephen Steinlight, and further back you get real luminaries like Samuel Gompers, Murray Rothbard, and of course Richard Feynmann.
The trouble is that the good ones are so enormously and self-effacingly good they can slip through the media attention cracks, while the bad ones are both extremely terrible and extremely visible (UNRELATED: nuke Hollywood today plz.) Jews are much closer to the angel/demon paradigm in their life endeavors, so there’s often real fear behind traditional ethnic anti-Semitism-even just one Jew can have an enormously outsized influence, for good or ill.
(Vs. Anti-Zionism, which is akin to white status posturing with liberal American Jews as the strivers-I show how strong I am by being excessively hard on the actions of Jews whom I conveniently would never associate with and excessively indulgent toward Palestinian Arabs whom I also would conveniently never associate with. Likewise elite SWPL whites talk derisively about ‘flyover country’ while spending millions to live in whitopias.)
My grandfather was kicked out of Germany by people who were NOT antisemites, they were just anti-parasites: they had nothing against Jews as such, only they were against them being stateless parasites in the Germans’ country. Why don’t they leave and go back to Palestine, where they belong?
I, as an Israeli, am to be kicked out of Israel by people who are NOT antisemites, they are merely anti-colonialists: they have nothing against Jews as such, only they are against them being colonialist opressors in the Palestinians’ country. Why don’t they go back to Germany, where they belong?
Sorry, skeptic, but I don’t get your point.
You know very well that the German Jews were not parasites but were not only integrated but key contributors to the German economy and culture. The Third Reich moved itself, ideologically, into a hypothesis that the devastated German economy (WWI, depression) could only be solved by a purification process. Facism is, ideologically, a collectivist ideology that says that IF we can return to a Pure Original State, THEN, all will be well.
Islamism is a fascist ideology – it too wants a return to a supposed Original Pure State – to result, supposedly, in a wonderful life/economy.
The current hostility to Israel isn’t just anti-semitism. The anti-semitism is from the Islamist dictators who are trying to hold onto tribal power in the ME states, long past its ‘best before’ date, suppressing a civic mode of governance, suppressing a capitalist economy – resulting in widespread poverty and using Israel as a diversion to sidelines the legitimate grievances of their own people.
Anti-Israel sentiment isn’t necessarily anti-semitism. It can be, but the two are not necessarily bonded. A lot of criticism is due to Israel for its occupation of the West Bank, which is due, in my view, to the Israeli need for the aquifers and less due to the orthodox insistence on the god-given nature of the land and less due to ‘need for protection’.
And, despite Ms Thomas, the Jews don’t ‘belong’ in Germany or Poland or anywhere specific. They have a right to live and practice their religion in any nation (heh, except Islamic ones of course). As for Israel, despite the bombastic statements of the Islamist tribal dictators, it legally exists. It’s not going anywhere.
I detct subtle sarcasm in skeptic’s post. Read it again.
Howevermuch Jewish existence is genuinely threatened by antisemitism and antiZionism, the hatred is ultimately not really about the Jews as a discrete group. The Jews and Israelis are not really (or necessarily) an existential threat to anyone else, no not even the Palestinians, except to the extent Jews are representatives of a greater modernity whose way of life does threaten traditional cultures, though not individuals as such. And that ultimately is what antisemitism and antiZionism are about: a way of dissimulating one’s hatred of modernity, and the marketplace, or one’s “privileged” or entrepreneurial implication in it. Christians developed early forms of antisemitism because they were themselves inheritors of the radical burden of Israel (the modernity that begins with the revelation at Sinai) in the larger world and had to deal with this potential or realized radicalism within their own midst. “The Jew”, like the hated “Israel”, is the sign of the Other who threatens us not so much from outside as from within, threatens that is those who deny the reality of a need (if lives and life are to be maximally affirmed) for the kind of monotheist freedom and equality that helps us escape established orders and hierarchies in the name of a renewed covenant of being, a necessary replacement for the old order that our resentments are always in the process of corroding.
There seems to be a lot of difference between the two. In fact, they seem like apples and oranges. Anti-semitism is the idea that Jews are evil and destructive to non-Jews. Zionism simply is the idea that there ought to be a Jewish state, or a state for Jews. Logically, anti-semites ought to be extreme Zionists. That is, if they want Jews out of non-Jewish lands, they ought to support a separate land for them. Extreme Zionists recognized this and Stern Gang led by future Prime Minister Shamir sought alliance with Axis as late as 1941. Hitler’s Madagascar plan was a kind of warped Zionism.
Anti-semites of course are not known for their logic, so they generally try to ally with anti-Israel forces instead. Still, at least some anti-Semites have proposed Birobidzhan, Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Russian Federation as a kind of alternative Israel. The idea is stupid and insulting of course, but it IS a Zionist idea.
I believe Jews have a right to an ethnostate of their own, just as much right as Kurds and Palestinian Arabs and the Flemish people and perhaps even Afrikaners do. And the state they HAVE built, the State of Israel, has a right to exist and do whatever she feels she needs to do to continue to exist in a very hostile neighborhood. Ethnonationalist states almost always are the best solution in an area in which different groups are in deep conflict. The key is not to oppress whatever minority population lives within your boundary of control, while at the same time not having too many of them. The latter is why Israel must make it clear it does not intend to hold on to the West Bank and Gaza forever, only until a credible, non-revanchist group of Palestinian Arabs are in a position to assume their rightful sovereignty.
That is an interesting point of view: I’ve long wondered at the British willingness to “help” Jews get their own homeland as well as the Mexican gov’t's willingness to provide information to help native-American Mexicans emigrate to the U.S. It could be like the KKK providing free tickets for black folks to leave America and go to Africa.
‘palestinian arabs’ but 300 million more genocidal maniacs in the area, and they’ll never change
The whole sub-discussion among anti-Zionists of whether Israel has a right to exist can be nothing but anti-Semitic, in that Jews are singled out for not having the natural right to occupy land they have fought for and lived on – a right every people with the strength to do so has simply arrogated and had accepted by the rest of the world since forever?
Every nation has had its wars of foundation, and nations have disappeared and come into existence for time immemorial (to borrow an apt phrase). Is it Israel’s great misfortune to have been born into the ‘modern’ age, when wars of foundation for nation states are no longer ‘acceptable’?
Or is it more likely that this concept is being used to target the Jewish state, aided and abetted by the weaponized genocidal weapon of the Arab nation called the ‘Palestinians’, who cleverly employ the language of anti-colonialism and ‘racism’ and so their war against the Jews enters the Western consciousness as especially legitimate?
So this was interesting and lively discussion here on PJ Media on a difficult topic.
I appreciate the article by David Solway. There is a point where you need to apply an occam’s razor and cut to the chase.
It is and has always been for Jews and everyone else a challenge to understand and apply definition to the concept of Jewish identity. This does not translate directly to a simple formulation.
There is a concept of a nation or people. In Hebrew ‘Am Yisroel’ literally the nation (or people) Israel. That goes back as far as recorded history.
There is a religious faith which has evolved over time and is the central core of Jewish religion. There are various ways and variations. Not so different than defining oneself as Christian or Muslim.
Then we have Israel. A modern nation state which came about as a result of Zionism which rejected religion based on the very true observation that it did not matter about religious belief or practice. They were right about that. European antisemitism was based on bloodline and we know the result of that.
The Zionists thought, before that happened, that they could bring about ‘acceptance’ if Jews would redefine themselves along national fulcrum, that did not happen. Today the only real acceptance is at the edge of a sword which requires great sacrifice.
I insist on definition of terms because Judaism (religion) Zionism (a national political ideology) and Israel (a modern liberal democratic state founded as a Jewish homeland) are distinct concepts.
That is true in Israel today and there are still issues about where all of that is going. I am confident that the internal issues can still work out.
Anyway as a new nation in a tough neighborhood Israel has done pretty well.
Shabbat shalom
My razor cuts simply though from the outside looking in as I do not live in Israel. “Enough” would seem to be the watchword as regards the foundation of a Jewish state and the land closest to a Jewish heart and identity the land chosen. I say “enough” because a thousand years and more of on-again, off-again pogroms against Jews in Europe culminating in the mass slaughter of Jews in WW II is in fact enough for anyone to wake up and say that maybe it’s time to have a place of our own.
Countries often have controversial beginnings from the point of view of anyone discomfited by such a founding but it has occurred many times in history and this is not an argument but a reality. The Palestinian Arabs were greedy and had to have it all and ended up with nothing. This is the nature of war and it is not crazy to say that in the case of those Palestinian Arabs it was an optional war. They could have bowed to reality and divided up the land peaceably rather than agitate and agitate.
To this day the P. Arabs have not opted for the better part of valor and continue to be the ones who pay the most prominent price. Gaza is a perfect example of fanaticism and a misplaced pragmatism regarding fair play translated into Orwell’s boot stamping on a human face forever.
Palestinian Arabs? Nonsense! Arabs are Arabs. Jews are Palestinians. Hitler and I will take care of them.
Richard Fernandez, in his second to last post, said something interesting (among very many interesting things he always says):
“Someone once said that the worst distortion Western academia and news agencies ever spread about the Middle East was that its politics was all about Arabs and Jews. But that is only the second worst distortion. The greatest sin was in making the story of sectarian strife disappear so that it could continue unnoticed. In some sense, the Druze, Maronites, Copts, Kurds are only different from the Jews in that they have not yet found their Israel. The real sin of the Zionism was in having succeeded in forming an enclave for themselves and thereby setting a bad example to the rest. Israel must at all events be punished pour encourager les autres.”
How about punishing people for boasting French where it is inappropriate and even obfuscates? Not everyone who doesn’t know French on an American website is an idiot.
This shift tof using the term anti-Zionism to avoid the reality of anti-semitism has been going on for a while now. It is suppposed to convince the world that those using the term are not racist. I have even seen videos of the “religious” leaders in the middle east use that term….most likely after preaching in their mosques that Muslims are commanded by Allah to kill all Jews.
It really is difficult to believe this when they want to “push Israel into the sea” and murder all Jews, man, woman and child” around the world. That’s just for starters.
Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitism
Not necessarily. There are some people who are Anti-Zionist but not anti-semitic. I know this personally because I met both of them in 1979.
Agree. Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism. Now that there is a state of Israel, Jew haters can hide behind the mask of criticism of Israel. And, since there are many Christian nations in the world and many Muslim nations in the world, one must question the attitude of any person who has trouble with the Jewish people have a nation where Jews are in the majority. Particularly a homeland where they lived for thousands of years. David Solway’s voice on this point is most welcome and very much needed!
Great point Sarah! Let’s assume any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic to be safe. Because if we assume that, we are likely to catch at least a few genuine Jew haters! I suggest we also setup a council that decides what is anti-Semitic and what is not. Most likely it will consist of Americans who have never been to Israel. What do you think?
Oh! Your enthusiasm for the jewish state has given me an idea. Let’s create an enclave in the middle of Houston Texas for the native American tribes that used to live in Texas! That was their traditional homeland for thousands of years after all.
Native Americans in Texas.
Interesting history there.
http://www.texashistory.com/Archives/TexasIndianReservations/tabid/152/language/en-US/Default.aspx
Let’s establish a homeland for black Americans where everyone will be black and race will no longer be a crippling issue in their daily lives. Black Americans would no longer be subject to the massive echo of hundreds of years of institutional racism which continues unabated today in America in the form of the New Jim Crow, racism 2.0, the New Confederacy and White Privilege. Enough is enough.
Now let’s see, where could such a homeland be established?
What about the Satmar Hasidim?
Incidentally, I can think of some other peoples who don’t have a national state of their own:
Roma (Gypsies)
Parsis
Mormons
Also Kurds, Druze, Yezids, Copts, Tamils, Shans, Wends, and Basques.
The question is whether Jewish identity is in conflict with national identity. Can a Jew be French, American, Polish? The modernizing Jews of the 19th and 20th centuries fought to establish this proposition. Bigots denied it. Zionism, arguably, agrees with the bigots. It is worth noting that the Balfour Declaration was opposed by the only Jew in the British Cabinet (Edwin Samuel Montagu).
However, Israel is now a fact on the ground. Support for the continuation of Israel as a nation does not require agreement with the doctrine that all Jews should live there rather than other countries, because it is their homeland, and they are outsiders elsewhere.
Rich Rostrom,
The Zionist movement (Zionism) resulted from the extreme persecution of Jewish people by Christian European people in Europe. The Zionist movement (Zionism) did not deny that a Jewish person could not be French, Polish, Geramn, etc, by his or her own choosing. The Zionist movement (Zionism) recognized the fact that the French people in France, and the Polish people in Poland, and the German people in Germany, etc., had not accepted, and were not accepting, Jewish people, not only as fellow equal citizens, but as fellow equal human beings. And, of course, Zionism was rejected by severe-Stockholm-syndrome-affected, dishonest, self-serving Jewish people of no integrity who had come to hold positions of relative power in Christian European societies – that is: “court Jews”.
The goal of the Zionist movement was the re-founding of the country of the Jewish people as the refuge and home of the Jewish people. The Zionist movement was completed. However, with, since the re-founding of the country of the Jewish people, the nation of the Jewish people, Israel, being under a military, terroristic, diplomatic, and propagandic racist siege whose goal has been to destroy the country of the Jewish people, the term Zionism, among Jewish people, has come to still be used, and means the principal of believing in the right of Jewish people to have, and to live in, and to govern themselves in, and to be able to defend themselves in, their own country.
Correction (to a significant grammatical mistake that I made, and to a typo spelling mistake that I made):
I wrote:
Which should be:
And, to clarify:
I wrote:
Which should be:
careful corrections, Daniel Bielak, well said and necessary.
Why don’t you guys go on the road and find new material.
Israel was founded on Marxist principles and the strongest critics are Israel Marxists in Israel. Combine that with a Marxist lust to manage affairs, and you have moral and physical paralysis.
Secondly if Christendom had wanted to destroy its Jewry, it certainly could of. How many Cathars have you met today or ever? Extermination has always been a possibility but didn’t happen: why?
The modern nation state has no place for isolate communities that demand special treatment, for that reason Jews were not asked back. Muslims you say, well Muslims in Europe are leftish clients and serve as the armed and militant wings for the left. They are there on sufferance as a political tool. Jews actually had value added and leverage, which cannot be tolerated.
Israel is doomed by its own ideology and resultant political culture. If you live by the sword (Marxism) you die by the sword. That does not mean you need fear a better swordsman, but rather that have no cause for complaint when you fall to your weapon of choice.
Stop blaming others and look to yourselves.
What a maroon. Israel will be here, thriving, long after you and I are dust.
I’ve lived among it and, really, a rose by any other name still stinks. What struck me most was the endless propoganda that was government fed (in my case, in Norway). It woke me up to a backwards mentality that has existed there for centuries, much to my surprise. There was a systematic branding of an entire group or people, not unlike in Nazi Germany, complete with vile political cartoons that were remarkably similar to those of the 1930′s. All in the name of “anti-Zionism”… Call it whatever you like; I know hatred and exclusion of a people when I see it.
A thousand fools all agreeing the world is flat does not make the world flat.
The world has always hated us and always will. I could care less why. It’s their sickness not mine.
What is important is that I took my grandchildren to Beit Knesset on Shabbat here in Yerushalayim today.
We have our children our land our army and our G-d!
Life is good.
Beautifully said.
Thank you.
It makes the world flat if someone puts a cage on your head with a hungry rat in it until you agree the world is flat.
Evidently it worked pretty good on you.
Jews have survived worse that what you describe because some Truths are eternal.
We are here building our land, enjoying our lives and bringing sanctity and sanity to a small corner of the world.
The best response to anti-semitism is to live as a Jew in the Land of Israel.
Life is good.
menachem
THank you for that. Great response.
Not for the thousands of Japanese tsunami dead you claimed here at PJM your dimwitted god punished for not being 100% on board with Judaism and its goals for Israel. I’d rather worship a radish.
I do not blame you for not understanding.
For many the idea of Divine Judgement is impossible to grasp. You seem to think that I enjoyed, G-d forbid, the people of Japan suffering. Nothing could be further from the truth. G-ds punishment is sometimes so harsh that the human mind simply cannot deal with it. The Shoah ripped millions of souls from my people in the most horrible way imaginable. That too was Divine Judgement. Do you think that the Shoah brings me pleasure?
The Nations of the World have come to a crucial nexus. Power history has become obsolete. We have reached a point in human history that has never been seen before. The Nations of the world now have the power to destroy the entire planet and all the people on it. Therefore human power, so widely diffused, is no longer the sane answer to conflict.
We are entering an age of spiritual history. Where the recognition of G-ds laws offer the only salvation for Mankind. Human beings have not spiritually evolved to the point where law, even Divine Law, is effective without punishment. I wish it were not so.
Nations who seek to dislodge Jews from even one single inch of Eretz Yisroel will suffer Divine punishment. That is the decree of The Almighty. The sooner the Nations of the World come to understand this and act accordingly the sooner their suffering will end.
May it come now without delay!
Some gifted writers have made some very flawed arguments to Solways article. The Jews claim to the Land of Israel predates Zionism by more than 3000 years. Zionism was merely the political vehicle in modern times that appeared to re-establish political sovereignty in the Land of Israel. The Zionist movement did not replace Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Zionist movement like any man made political movement is subject to being flawed. What political movement isn’t? The rights of the Jews to the Land of Israel is the decree of The Almighty. That is flawless. That is why the State of Israel exists today. There is no other explanation.
Menachim,
show me the deed to your people’s land. The Torah and your particular interpretation of it is not binding on non-Jews, nor on worldly governments. The world doesn’t give a damn, nor should they.
Israel exists because Zionists convinced the British colonial rulers of Palestine to promise them the land in 1917, the UN approved this promise after World War II, and the Arab states stupidly started a war they lost in an attempt to prevent the Zionists from securing this new MAN-given title to the land. If the Arabs had accepted the 1947 partition, if the Arab states had not attacked the new Jewish state, if 500,000 or so non-Jewish residents in the new Jewish state hadn’t fled or been chased away in the War of Independence, the State of Israel would have close to a non-Jewish majority today, without a bullet having been fired. Israel exists for the same reason most countries exist: it took the land from a weaker, stupider, less well-connected foe. A foe whose descendents are understandably still full of rage. Just because the solution to their problems should not and will not involve driving their conquerors into the sea or forcing them to live as a minority in the land (like the Afrikaners of South Africa are forced to do today), doesn’t mean their rage is not understandable.
Morkis,
The Torah itself is the deed to the Land of Israel. In fact all deeds to this very day are morally valid only when they follow the lessons of The Torah. When Abraham bought the burial site for Sara the Torah relates-
1- The metes and bounds of the property
2- When the property was purchased
3- What was paid for the property and in what currency.
4- The the two parties entered into the transaction of their own free wills.
5- It identifies both buyer and seller.
6- It relates who the witnesses were.
7- The transaction was done in writing and recorded.
Long before the British empire existed The Land of Israel belonged to the Jews. The Land is ours and here we remain. It was always so and it will always be so.
Life is good.
ps- I doubt that facts will change your mind and b=normally I would not have bothered to respond to you at all. I did so for the sake of the open minded people who might stumble upon your post and not realize how historically ignorant it is.
I’m glad life is good for you.
I still don’t understand why you think that the commnands of the Torah should be binding on non-Jews.
Also, in the future, if the Jews in the Land of Israel are ever in danger of becoming a minority again, do Jews have the moral right to evict or disenfranchise enough non-Jews with the Land in order to retain perpetual Jewish control?
The Torah is binding on Jews only. The Noahide Commandments are what is binding upon all of mankind. According to Jewish Law non-Jews residing within Israel have personal rights but not national rights. They currently are entitled to vote but that must be rescinded. If they wish to vote they have the opportunity to live elsewhere. They must accept Jewish sovereignty and if they do not they must be expelled.
As long as they reside peacefully, obey the law, do not seek to undermine the country, etc. they are free to enjoy life like the rest of us. Freedom of worship, speech, medical care, etc. are all guaranteed under Jewish law. Equality in the judicial system is also established.
Under Sharia Law, there is no equality under the law for non-Muslims. There is no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, etc.
Israel comprises one half of one percent of the middle east. All else is Islamic. While I am sure you will jump up and down demanding the right to vote for muslims in Israel I could care less. The rights for muslims in Israel must be those established by The Almighty, not by you. We will not have our country voted out from under us. Hitler and Hamas were both elected. When democracy becomes suicidal it looses its very justification.
and the other guy, plus you know who, and who’s on first, etc. above, they never go after the hatred part, the exclusion part, or extermination part, no, and they think they’re so smart, and so wonderful besides, professing such concern for israel, and for jews, with such facts, and logic, and precision, yeah, sure . . .
thanks joshua g @ 34, whatever or wherever it is, you can smell how bad it stinks, too
Everybody here should understand that the so-called “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King is a FORGERY.
One should NEVER use it.
Check Wikipedia, which will lead you to the reputable sources, such as Eric J. Sundquist, Strangers in the Land: Blacks, Jews, Post-Holocaust America (Harvard UP, 2005), p. 109.
However, Sundquist–and John Lewis–say it is based on an actual interaction that occurred between MLK and a radical black student at Harvard, and is general accord with MLK’s positive views on Israel and negative views of anti-Zionism.
And by “Everybody” I especially mean the author of the above article, David Solway.
And by “Everybody”, I especially mean David Solway, the author of the above article, who cited this forgery (footnoting one of the many unqualified sites which retails the forgery)–and made much of it
Forgery only counts when it works against you like “elders” and “Zion.”
Where does that leave the part of the orthodox Jewish community that are anti-Zionist for religious reasons?
How about, ‘as a misguided, small, but very visible minority exploited by Jew haters.’
Labeling a religious belief that is far older than Herzl’s Zionism as “misguided” may be convenient to you, but it is condescending nonetheless. Let’s face it: There is a plethora of reasons why people are anti-Zionist. That all of them are equivalent to anti-Semitism is a rather dubious claim. Of course that is not to say that there isn’t a rather large group of people that is both anti-semitic and anti-zionist.
They dispute the political movement of Zionism because it is a man-made political movement. That the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews they do not dispute. The issue is one of timing not ownership.
The idea that Zionism is a good thing is a canard. But the author defeated his own piece; anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are different!
Menachem –
I can’t seem to reply to last comment of your thread but I appreciate it. First, I have no doubt that under your proposal — allowing Arabs in the Land of Israel full civil rights but absolutely no political rights — the Jews would treat the Arabs alot better than Arabs would treat the Jews when situation is reversed.
Second, that doesn’t matter in this world right now. The era of kings and lordship is over. Now is the era the peoples rule, for better or worse. And we don’t allow one people to rule over another people, no matter how “well” they treat them. That’s apartheid. That’s “separate but equal” in theory, Jim Crow in practice. It just is anathema in the modern world, and it’ll take the Messiah to change this. Maybe Neterai Karta is right…maybe the timing is all wrong. If you want Jews only to have political rights in the Land of Israel, then you need a smaller state, perhaps giving up not only the West Bank and Gaza, but also the other Arab dominated lands such as the area around the Galillee.
Third, a question, how many Israelis do you think agree with you, but just don’t say it openly? That is, how many Israelis think the best solution is to preserve the status quo, continue to settle Judea and Samaria, and wait for the time when the rest of the world has no choice but to acknowledge and accept full permanent Jewish control of all of Eretz Israel, with Arabs allowed to remain as guests with full civil but not political rights?
Your premise that Jews wish to ” rule over ” anyone is absurd.
First, for Jews proselytization is absolutely forbidden. The result of this prohibition is the acknowledgement of an individuals right to worship The Almighty as he chooses. Only those who seek to impose their religion on another wish to rule over them,. Secondly, Israel holds no population captive. Anyone who desires to leave the country may do so. Anyone wishing to live in a muslim country has twenty two opportunities to do so as that is the number of countries that have Islam as their official religion. Jordan, an artificial country, controls 75% of territorial Palestine. Its a twenty mile bus ride from Jerusalem. Just as Jews who wish to live in a Jewish country move from all over the world to be here so can muslims move if they want to.
Right now muslims rule over 80% of the land that was promised to the Jews by The Almighty. We have given too much already. We must take it back and we will. In fact the EU countries and the USA are guarantors of the peace treaty with Egypt. Since the new Egyptian government will not hold up its end of the bargain the USA and the EU must demand the immediate return of Sinai to Israel. Since Hamas was elected they have been firing rockets at us daily from gaza. Gaza too must return to Israel. So it doesn’t matter even if Israel temporarily relinquishes control over territory that territory will return to Israel because that is The Almighty’s promise.
To answer your last question it does not matter how many people think the earth is flat. It isn’t. A majority decision that violates G-ds Laws has no validity. One cannot make murder legal even if a majority votes to make it so.
“Since the new Egyptian government will not hold up its end of the bargain the USA and the EU must demand the immediate return of Sinai to Israel.”
You really expect us goyim to do your dirty work, don’t you?
No I do not. What I do expect is the countries respect the treaty obligations they commit to. As far as goyim are concerned they are like Jews or any other human beings. They are as noble or ignoble as conscious demands. You stand exposed a malicious twit with an axe to grind. Grind elsewhere.
And you sir, who want the non-Jewish natives of Palestine to live without the right to vote in their own land, are on the same moral level as your garden variety American racist of previous eras, who wanted native americans and blacks to live on their own land as “guests” of the conquering tribe. Such a view is anathema to the world, and to righteous Jews in particular, who remember their people having spent centuries living in ghettos without the rights and privileges of others in whatever nation they were in.
It was not and has never been ” their land “. They are the usurpers- A “people” created out of whole cloth as a propaganda tool to destroy one of the oldest nations on the planet.
You are in desperate need of a library card.
It is also true that there will be no difference between a Jew and a Zionist when TSHTF. They are one in the same.