I've yet to read a single article about Arab imperialists such as Osama bin Laden (presumably that's who you mean by Arab imperialists) where they've been discussed in positive terms. Not even in the Green Left Weekly, which is about as anti-Israel, anti-Bush as you can easily get in Oz (Obama's election has made 'anti-American attitudes' very hard to prove - he was cheered by random Parisians yesterday, according to AP. Can you imagine that happening for Bush? Clearly hatred is only man-deep). I guess I could find some specific examples if you want, but I think the challenge might be to find some supporting articles, especially post 9/11.

Fair enough. It's a bit of a shame that you can only either be pro-Israel or anti-Semitic in the EU, but the EU isn't much of a foreign policy hub so I suppose we can't expect subtlety.

Osama bin Laden is referred to an a "Muslim fundamentalist", despite the fact that what he believes in has very little to do with real Islam in any shape or form. The fact that the media tend to confuse evil terrorists with Muslims is a related problem which I addressed in points 13 (interviewing philo-Semitic Muslims) and 19 ("Islamic Republic").

Arab imperialism is the claim that all of North-Africa and the Middle East from Egypt to Iraq is the "Arab world". And I have seen no mainstream media outlets that do not fully respect and support Arab claims to all these lands. The only country in the region that is not under Arab rule for the longest time is Israel, a case in which the media demand that at least a part of it must be Arab (and Jew-free, of course). (Note that this situation has changed during the Bush era, because now Iraqi Kurdistan and the Christian part of Sudan are autonomous. Two changes the media did not exactly celebrate.)

If the United Kingdom modified, by force, the Commonwealth of Nations such that all member countries would have to be ruled by white Englishmen whereas native languages would be forbidden and blacks legally enslaved or murdered en-masse, you can be sure that the liberal media would scream bloody murder. Yet the Arab League gets away with this stuff.

The entire invention of a "Palestinian people" (which did not historically exist and is not linguistically different from Jordanians and Egyptians) is a mechanism to protect Arab imperialism. They are one Arab people when it suits them and lots of small oppressed peoples when that fits the propaganda better. That's why, apparently, the "Palestinians" cannot be absorbed by Arab states. But middle-eastern Jews, who are linguistically and culturally different from the Arabs, can be expelled from Arab countries and bombed in Israel and western media hardly mention that they exist (let alone that they make up the majority of Israelis).

Another feature of this trick is to call Arab towns "refugee camps", whereas Sderot, for example, is not a "refugee camp" despite the fact that its inhabitants fled Arab countries at the same time that the Arabs in "refugee camps" fled Israel. And none of the media ever point out that while Arab refugees got and get lots of aid from the UN, Jewish refugees got and get none (and are not even legally recognised as refugees).

If a hypothetical British empire did the same things these days, the media would be all over them, I am sure. Heck, South-Africa practiced the same system the Arab states practice (just with fewer genocides and less oppressive laws), and the world was supposed to boycott them because they (for some reason) were evil. But have the media ever called for a boycott of Arab states because of what Iraq did to the Kurds and Assyrians or because of what Sudan does to the Africans (or because of what the "Arab" states in northern Africa do to the natives there)?

The difference between South-Africa before 1990 and Syria today is that in Syria the native Kurds have no homeland at all and are not allowed to run schools in their own language, while in South-Africa at least a few rights remained for the natives. (Otherwise the countries seem to be pretty similar, including their support for terrorists in surrounding countries.)

I sometimes hear that anti-Israel and anti-semitism are not the same things, but I have yet to hear about an anti-Israel position that is not based on some anti-Semitic assumptions.

For example, I do not believe that those who compare Israel with Nazi Germany chose Nazi Germany as a random example of an evil dictatorship and might just have chosen Pol Pot's regime if it had come to mind.

As for one possible difference between pro-Israel and philo-semitism, I want to quote Dr Khaleel Mohammed, whom I wrote about in a previous article.

"My position on Israel is free from any hidden motive: it is based on my reading of the Qur'an, one that I must admit places me at odds with many of my coreligionists. I certainly do not support Israel so that the in-gathering of the Jews can fulfill the parousia, and they be converted to Christianity. This to me is latent anti-semitism. Nor do I support a Jewish land in Israel so that I can convert Jews to Islam. This would be latent Judeophobia."

Incidentally, I have exactly the same opinion about Israel as the one Dr Mohammed found in the Quran.

Ironically, Osama bin Laden, the "Muslim" Brotherhood, and Arab nationalists disagree with the "word of Allah" in this case.

It's in Sure 17:101-104. Allah commands the Israelites to live in Israel (not, ironically, in "Palestine", a word used then only by the pagans of whom Islam's prophet had a very low opinion). (Muhammed, an Ishmaeli, also had a low opinion of Arabs and their tribalism, but that is perhaps besides the point here.)

Regarding this:

Turns out the highly succesful United Kingdom Independence party is highly philo-semitic and pro-Israel:

http://www.thejc.com/articles/ukip-leader-attacks-trendy%E2%80%99-israel-hate-eu-parliament

I am starting to be convinced that the mainstream media are trying to play down the fact that Europe is moving right AND becoming more pro-Israel.

The fact that the UKIP is openly for Israel didn't seem to stop its many voters. And neither were the German Christian Democrats or Berlusconi's party in Italy shunned for their support for Israel.

It seems that the majority of Europeans really do think different from what the media tell them to think. A few years ago, it hadn't been like that yet. Maybe the advent of blogs and better Internet access in general makes people more right-wing and less anti-Semitic?

can I be pro the existance of isreal and pro-isreali life while still being anti its occupation and some of its policies, or are the two impossible?

I don't know.

Which particular position do you think is pro-Israel and against its "occupation"?

(And how pro-Israel is a position that makes Israel vulnerable like in the 60s again?)

Sorry, let me rephrase it.

I agree with the right of Isreal to exist and its people not to be killed.  In that I am pro-Isreal. 

I do not agree with some of Isreals policies with regard to the placement of the new wall, the bulding of settlements on non-pre1967 land and such like.

I do not agree with Hamas killing anybody (and Obama speech asked them to stop all violence), I do not agree with attacks on Isreal.

Good.

And I have a problem with the position that certain land must be Jew-free. I consider that position as racist as the extreme Zionist position (which very very few people hold and which is really unpopular in Israel) that Israel must be Arab-free.

(Note that Lieberman, whom western media call racist, does not propose that either.)

Nobody agrees with Hamas killing people (except for a few fanatics). The issue is whether you would go as far as admitting that Israel should be allowed to build a wall to stop Hamas and other terrorists from killing people.

That's where the problems start. Most people agree that Jews must not just be killed. But few people agree that Jews have a right to defend themselves. And a wall is among the most humane methods to do so.

He and his followers are also hugely racist in favour of Arabs - if you look at the writings of Malay Muslim terrorists who've dealt with Arab Muslims, many bemoan poor treatment at the hands of Arabs (and the world's hearts bleed for them, truly). The Arabs seemed to believe the Islamic super state everyone was fighting for should be ruled by Arabs. That's what I thought you were referring to. Clearly not.

The only analog I can think of this situation is China. People talk of China, but Tibet and the Uighur aren't happy members of the state. Weak example, sure, but I'm not sure categorising a region by the dominant political force is necessarily discrimination. It's shorthand instead. Intelligent people will know there are minorities in these regions, and even idiots should be aware that the Arab world's borders end rather messily around Israel. Journos tend to work to word and timing limits - I'm not sure it's practical to mention that Israel isn't Arab every time you want to talk about some pan-Arab issue.

As for the demands? from journalists towards Israel, history shows that part of it has been Arab, and demography shows that a sizable minority of Israelis are Arabs. I don't think it's logical to move from "these people talk non-specifically about the Arab world" to "journalists think Israel should be Jew-free". We can be more reasonable than that.

In the current Commonwealth climate, I think the UK would be expelled from the Commonwealth they created. The difference is that Arabs are always screaming about murdering people. It's why no public anywhere trusts 'them', and dumb South Americans get shot in tube stations for looking Arab. It's not news any more, save when anti-Arab fervour seems to be dying down. Surely your local region has seen the massive arguments through the courts about the siting of mosques, or the tolerability of burqas on public streets. You don't see anywhere near as much fuss about Jewish temples or those little hats and dreadlocks.

Overall, I think you're mistaking the vocal minority of the public who only dislike certain groups for the vastly xenophobic majority, who hate or fear every foreigner more or less equally.

That's because anyone can walk into a synagogue and see for himself that it is not used for preaching hatred. And while this is probably true for most mosques as well, it certainly isn't true for all of them.

Hassidic Jews are also not exactly known for their violence so there is little reason to be afraid of them (and noone is). There is also a difference between a man wearing a hat and a woman being forced to wear a burqa. One is an unfortunate fashion choice, perhaps, the other is subjugation of women.

http://news.google.ie/news?pz=1&ned=en_ie&hl=en&q=tibet

Seems to me like the mainstream media are all over the fact that Tibet has its own identity which is under Chinese pressure. The Uighurs are rarely mentioned though. The Chinese example is good and I would understand it if non-Chinese inhabitants of "China" would not want to be "Chinese".

This is a Wikipedia article about a Jewish extremist, now deceased, who has and had very little support in Israel and who advocates exactly the same as the rest of the world regarding settlements:

When he served as a Member of the Knesset he proposed a $40,000 compensation plan for the Arabs he was to evict. But he made it clear that Arabs who refused compensation would be expelled by force:

    "I’d offer financial compensation for those who want to leave the country voluntarily. I would only use force for those who don’t want to leave. I’d go all the way, and they know that... I’m going to hold the bridges on the Jordan river; we’ll hold them for two weeks. We’ll evacuate the Arabs and let Jordan go to the United Nations."

Of course, he is talking about Arab settlements, not Jewish settlements. And he wants to offer compensation, which I think was never a part of any UN decision about Jewish settlements. Note that Jordan has build and expanded lots of settlements during its occupation of the West-Bank.

Rest assured that I as opposed to the destruction of Arab settlements as I am to the destruction of Jewish settlements. And I consider a Jew advocating the destruction of Arab settlements to be as racist as a non-Jew advocating the destruction of Jewish settlements.

Also note that some of the Jewish "settlements" in non-pre-1967 land have existed for thousands of years, some since 1300 BCE and the area was only Jew-free between 1948 and 1967. (That was apparently not a problem for the UN or world opinion)

Large parts of Jewish Jerusalem including neighbourhoods that have been Jewish for hundreds of years fall under this weird settlement law the UN apparently came up with. And that same law never applied to Arab quarters or Arab settlements, neither in the West-Bank nor in Israel or annexed territories (like the eastern part of Jerusalem).

anti-Semitism

n.

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

No, it's probably because people don't associate Israeli actions with Judaism, but with Israel. That's why marches tend to end up at the embassy, not the synagogue.

Really? Is that why their posters are often demanding a re-opening of Auschwitz and "Death to the Jews"?

People associate Israeli actions with Jews and that's why people are opposed to them. When non-Jews do the same things and worse (and without being attacked first), those same people are completely quiet, but COMPLETELY quiet. They are NOT on the streets the next day protesting against Hamas and demanding that all Arabs be murdered in gas chambers.

Did you know that our synagogue had police protection in January? Did you know that every synagogue in Germany has constant police protection? Did you know every year when we celebrate Hanukkah in front of the lord mayor's house, we have police protection? (It's not to protect white supremacists, liberals, and Islamic fundamentalists from "Israeli actions".)

Don't tell me that the protesters see a difference between Israel and Judaism.

If they hated Israel because of Israel's actions, they would hate all other countries more and the Arabs most. The Arabs don't build hospitals for their enemies, they just murder them as any Darfurian can tell you. (You can meet some survivors in Israel.)

The wars against Israel have caused fewer deaths, by far, than ALL other conflicts in the middle east. So why do the protesters pick on Israel? How come that they differentiate between Israel and Judaism but somehow end up ignoring all non-Jewish countries in the same region? And how come, if for them Israel and Judaism are two different subjects, why do they compare Israel with Nazi Germany of all evil places? Is it just that Pol Pot or Stalin didn't come to mind? Is it just an unfortunate co-incidence? Or is "Judaism", which they DO indeed associate Israel with, the connection?

It's not even possible to see that difference. Israel is a Jewish state. 80% of its population are Jewish and almost all middle-eastern Jews live there. You cannot disassociate Israel from the Jews and neither can the fascist protesters.

Why do you think white supremacists are against Israel? Is it because they don't like a powerful white western-style country with a great military and the ability and willingness to project power and control "brown people"? Or is it because Israel is Jewish?

You can, if you like, say that the anti-Semitism of the anti-Israel crowd is just partial, directed only at middle-eastern Jews. But even that would still be morally wrong, wouldn't it?