...

Sorry to nitpick but did you mean illegal?

I thought that most of the vile anti-semetic web sites were those run by neo-nazis or hamas and the like?  I've not come across many (if any) left wing sites that say all jews should be killed.

Criticism of Isreali policies must be allowed yes, but not shouting death to the jews - or acting on such sentaments

 

Perhaps JU doesn't update as fast as I thought. I corrected that an hour ago.

 

They don't say it directly. They refer to it as the "Palestinian cause" and pretend that despite Hamas and the PLO calling for the extermination of the Jews that cause is not anti-Semitic.

Left-wing site smake a difference between Jews and Zionists and forget that a Zionist is simply a living Jew in the middle east. (In the middle east, as a Jew, you are either a Zionist and flee to Israel or you are dead. And in Israel you either fight for the country or the country vanished and so do you.) There is nothing more evil than a middle-eastern Jew, for many on the left.

It's always possible to rephrase anti-Semitism to make it sound nicer. Want to justify the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by the Arabs in 1948? Just claim that their ancient homes in the old city are "settlements" in "occupied Palestine" that should not be allowed to exist. Want to justify the idea that prohibiting Jews, but not Arabs, from buying a house in East-Jerusalem, call the house an "illegal Israeli settlement". It's easy.

I have seen articles claiming that Hitler was a Zionist on Daily Kos. And German left-wingers happily demonstrated with Hizbullah supporters in 2006.

I prefer an honest neo-Nazi over an anti-Zionist left-winger any day. Another Shoa, if it happens, will happen not because Nazis called for it but because socialists and liberals carefully explained away all anti-Semitism as "legitimate criticism of Israel" and the attack that will finally defeat Israel and cause the death of millions will be hailed as a victory for the "Palestinian cause" until the deed is done and the left wakes up because the PLO leaders WILL implement what they promised for decades and NOBODY will even attempt to stop them, except perhaps for a few Bedouin and Druze who survived the war and try to save what is left of Israel. Everything else will be too late.

Then the left will be pro-Jewish for a few decades as long as the Jews agree with their role as victims.

And why do I know that?

Because that is what happened in most other countries in the middle east. The left celebrated the revolutions and then, after a few decades, realised (if they do) that hundreds of thousands died at the hands of the liberators. It won't be any different in Israel. If the "Palestinian cause" wins, the fate of the Jew will be the same as the fate of all the other non-Arab peoples beaten by Arab "resistance" groups.

In the middle-east, for the left, the terms "imperialism" and "freedom" are reversed in their meaning. "Imperialism" is the attempt to remain independent from the region's most powerful nation's rule and "freedom" is dictatorship. many left-wingers speak up in support of Hamas and the PLO in the name of "Palestinian freedom". Many even spoke up for Saddam. I have seen the "freedom" they support. I have seen the torture chambers.

 

Criticism of Israeli policies is a ridiculous concept.

Israel doesn't have any special policies that other countries do not have. What should be allowed is criticism of policies. Criticism of _Israeli_ policies implies that there is a built-in difference between Israeli and "normal" policies. That is simply not true and making such a distinction is anti-Semitic in itself.

Every country that is under attack will build a border fence. Heck, the EU has one between the two Spanish cities in Africa and Morocco. But such a border fence is suddenly evil when Israel builds it.

Every country builds houses on territory captures from another country, sometimes even in aggressive wars. But when Russia builds in Koenigsberg or the US in Arizona, or Saudi-Arabia in Mecca, NOBODY screams racism.

Every country that occupies a territory not incorporated into its own land differentiates between citizens of the country and people living in that territory. (I myself grew up in territory occupied by the US.) But when Israel does it it becomes "apartheid", as even Jimmy Carter claims.

Every country has annexed land won in a war, in contrast to Israel usually in aggressive wars but sometimes in defensive such, but only when Israel does it it is "illegal". Does your typical liberal complain that North-Vietnam's annexation of South-Vietnam was "illegal"? He does not. But ask him about East-Jerusalem.

 

 

Every country grants citizenship to its nationals, but Israel is "racist" because it grants citizenship to Jews.

No Arab country (except now Iraq) acknowledges the language spoken by up to 60% of its population as official when it's not Arabic, but Israel has two official languages and is considered, by the left, an apartheid state that discriminates against its Arab minority.

No other country in the world waits four years until it reacts militarily to bombardments of its cities, and then hands over a list with names of every person who died in the conflict on both sides and yet Israel is considered a warmonger who doesn't care about civilian deaths. Israel even bulldozes rather than bombs houses in fights and is condemned for doing so. The US or any other country wouldn't even consider sending bulldozers to destroy houses of terrorists in, say, Pakistan, rather than just fly over and bomb the damn things without risk to the pilots.

So what exactly makes a policy "Israeli"?

 

 

 

Sorry, I think you might be reading somewhat more into my comment than was meant.

To me an 'israeli policy' is a policy that Isreal has.

An Amercian policy is a policy that Amercia has

A British Policy is a policy that Britian has.

They all have comment policies in common and policies that differ.

There really was nothing else meant by it.

I think I understood you, although my explanation was not specifically directed at you.

But my point was that Israel's policies are really not different from other country's policies, but are still specifically criticised as "Israeli policies" by the left.

Obama's air force bombed villages in Pakistan trying to hit terrorists. That's US policy under Obama and was US policy under Bush. I am fine with that.

However, Israel's policy is more humane and the IDF actually risk their lives taking out terrorists one by one rather than from above with no risk for the pilot. That's a case where Israeli policy is much more humane than every other country's.

Yet Israel's policy is criticised by the left. Consistently.

The way I see it, and maybe you know of examples that contradict what I see, there are three types of Israeli policies that progressives and "peace activists" usually criticise:

1. Normal policies pursued by every state that suddenly become evil when Israel employs them. That includes the border fence and shooting back with full force when attacked (except that no other country in the world would wait three or four years before shooting back with full force). It also includes annexing land and using it, which is a common occurence everywhere in the world and only becomes problematic when Israel does it.

2. Israeli policies that are a lot tamer and more humane than other countries' policies. That includes using bulldozers and infantry rather than the air force to destroy terrorist infrastructure, building hospitals for the enemy, and leaving Muslim holy sites under the supervision of an Arab organisation.

3. So-called "Israeli policies" that are simply made up and have never been executed (but are sometimes copies of policies the PLO pursued against Israel). These include the claims that Israeli television and schools teach hatred to Israeli children and those stories one keeps reading about Israel committing massacres (like in Jenin), bombing UN schools, or engaging in organ trade.

The third is clearly anti-Semitism.

The second is just weird, and most critics who talk about those points simply don't know much about the world. Sometimes those stories are modified to make them more evil: for example a bull dozer that destroyed a police station during a battle becomes a bull dozer that destroyed an Arab home during a cease-fire to make room for a Jewish family or something like that.

The first is grounds for criticism, but I do think it is anti-Semitic to criticise any such policies as specifically "Israeli policies" given that all countries engage in them and unless Israel does them they are never considered worthy of much criticism. As I said I don't remember huge protests organised by "peace activists" against North-Vietnam's annexation of South-Vietnam and I do remember back in 1990, when I was in high school, that most student groups organised not demonstrations against Iraq annexing Kuwait but against the coalition "starting" a war to take it back.

If you show me a liberal group who oppose Poland's annexation of eastern Germany (which I have no problem with!), I'll believe that the same group's criticism of Israel's annexation of East-Jerusalem or the Golan Heights is not anti-Semitic in nature. But if liberals single out Israel and criticise her for acts that other countries do too and that are considered completely normal unless committed by Israel, how could such "criticism" not be anti-Semitic? (Or perhaps it has nothing to do with Israel's Jewish majority and those liberals just hate Bedouins and hence, by extension, the actions of an army with lots of Bedouin officers?)

In other words, if someone criticises "Israeli policies", he will have to explain why he criticises the _policies_ and not why he criticises them because they are _Israeli_.

If the same person has no history of ever mentioning problems with such policies in the context of other countries, or, in fact, has a history of specifically supporting such policies in the context of other countries, the criticism is likely anti-Semitic in nature.

Spanish liberals, for example, complain about the West Bank border fence more often than about the border fence between Ceuta and Morocco. For them, this is clear to me, the issue with an "Israeli border fence" is not "border fence" but "Israeli".

Many German socialists still find the Berlin Wall an acceptable mechanism to "protect" socialist East-Germany against emigration of its citizens but will condemn Israel's border fence despite the fact that it is meant (and does) stop terror attacks. Both border installations make life difficult for the target party. I know, I grew up in Berlin.

 

I agree that if somebody crictises Isreaii, but not other contries that have the same policies that they are at best being 'selective' or anti-semteic.

To be honest I had never heard of that wall before!

is there not a difference though that the wall is buit on land that has been part of Spain for over 500 years and the people enlcosed wish to be part of Spain while the wall Isreal is building isn't in the pre-67 land and is enclosing people that do not wish to be part of Isreal?

Ok.




It's not actually a big deal. It's just a border fence.




Not really.

The land is part of Spain because Spain once invaded northern Africa and took it. They kept it so long because they always refused to give it back.

Israel took the West-Bank when Arab armies assembled at the borders and threatened invasion and when the Jordanian army invaded Israel from the West-Bank.

The Israeli wall is built on land occupied, but not annexed by Israel. This is completely legal according to international law, or at least it has been until the UN decided that in this case, it isn't.

The border fence does not enclose anybody who does not want to be part of Israel. In fact Israel, because of the fear of a "demographic threat" has no interest in having Arab towns located within the fenced region.

What the wall does enclose is Jewish towns in the West-Bank, Jewish towns that Israel wants to keep. Some Israeli politicians, notably the foreign minister have offered land with Arab towns in Israel in exchange for the jewish towns, but one problem is that the Arabs in those towns often do not want to become part of an Arab state.

The fence certainly is a huge inconvenience for many people in the West-Bank because it cuts through villages and towns and often cuts off farmland from the villages of its owners. But the point is that it is in absolute terms less of an inconvenience than the Berlin wall, yet there are many left-wingers, especially in Germany, who condemn the Israeli border fence but defend the Berlin wall.

This is a map of the wall:

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/newpdf/WestBankWall.jpg

As you can see the wall pretty much follows the 1948 cease-fire line (I'll never understand why that line is suddenly considered a "border"), except in Jerusalem, where it follows the city limits of Jerusalem (and Jerusalem was annexed by Israel*) and north of Jerusalem, where the wall encloses Jewish West-Bank towns. (There is a Jewish community in Hevron as well, but outside the enclosed area in the south.**)

Note that the statistics part of the map is total nonsense because it includes Jerusalem as part of the "West-Bank". It also ignores the fact that, according to the Palestine mandate borders all of Transjordan (Jordan) is "Palestinian" as well.

Mandate Palestine:

Israel (including Jerusalem) is under Israeli control.

Gaza and Jordan are under Arab control (although obviously not the same such).

5% of the West-Bank are under Israeli control.

40% of the West-Bank are under Israeli military and PA civilian control.

55% of the West-Bank are under PA control.

MOST of Palestine is under Arab control.


*Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1980 but the UN declared the annexation illegal because Israel is a Jewish state. The UN didn't phrase it that way, but has a history of accepting annexations if done by non-Jewish states. Or at least I don't remember the UN condeming the Russian annexation of Koenigsberg or North-Vietnam's annexation of South-Vietnam. And neither did the UN ever declare the "Palestinian cause" for illegal because of its claims to all of Israel (which "Palestine" would apparently want to annex and which Arab armies have tried to invade and annex in the past).

**The often referred-to "road map" is based on a 1994 peace treaty that actually recognises the Jewish "settlement" in Hevron (which is itself over 3000 years old). Today, in spite of the actual peace treaty, the "settlement" is considered "illegal" which is why so many Israelis are opposed to Obama's plan to freeze settlement building in the West-Bank. If a 3000-year old Jewish town specifically allowed to exist by the actual peace treaty is "illegal", what value does a peace treaty have and what is the meaning of the term "settlement" anyway?