...

Leauki, you bring up some good valid points. 

With Pakistan, since its a Muslim country fighting against Muslims I guess that cancels everything out. Would this be labeled in a way genocide?  oh wait I guess the PC thing to say is 'ethnic cleansing.

"And thirdly, while we are at it, I have seen "peace activists" use the term "Holocaust" to describe what Israel is doing to "Palestinians". Again, assuming that Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it, I want to learn how such a coincidence could happen. Do many people simply not know that the (real) Holocaust was not about Germany using "excessive force" to kill a few Jews who had planned to destroy Germany and attacked Germans? Were those same people unable to find any other event they could use for the ridiculous comparison of genocide and self-defence? And was it coinidence or some tragic mistake that made them, again, choose a comparison that was likely to offend many relatives of (real) victims of the (real) Holocaust still alive in Israel?"

The other point here is that no one wanted to help the German/Polish Jews.  On the other hand with PA there are several Muslims countries that are willing to help BUT help with only military aid. If these countries would have helped with non-military aid I think there would have been less violence.  Take note that I said less violence, for I feel that there still would be violence. 

The thing that drives me insane is most Westerns don't realize how big of a leach/mooch (I use to know the slang that people in the U.K. used but it has slipped my mind) the PA is/was on Israel.  I will say that Israel could have done stuff differently/more but when Muslim countries are not helping it with aid it becomes dangerous.

My thought is, why is the US giving the PA is it a billion dollars? Are they really that daft? Is that money actually going to make it to the people to help? I like to point out all the time of how Surah Arafat is now one of the wealthiest women and the fact that no one has tried to get the money that is blatantly not hers back. 

She lives in France now, right? I should mention that to that lepton in that other forum who feels that Muslim extremist are just a few random blips.

I wonder how that affects our own liberals.

Somehow, when Israel kills 300 civilians, it's a crime against humanity and needs weeks of protesting.

But when anybody else kills ten or one hundred times as many, everybody is quiet.

I can only imagine how much better the world would be for those liberals without Jews.

It is nearly impossible to explain if you assume no anti semitism. If you assume nothing and just look at the facts you see a lot of anti semitism.

Notice I said nearly impossible instead of impossible. For some it is not about anti semitism per se (although liberals are often also anti semites). But a twisted depraved form of liberalism that assumes total cultural equivalence. Where the only proof needed that one is being oppressed is for them to fail, where the only proof that one is an oppressor is for one to succeed. Western values of liberty and democracy are obviously working in israel, thus it must be evil and exploting its neighbors. Who must be oppressed and exploited (and not held back by their own dark ages type culture).

Since the pakistan situation is arab muslims who believe in freedom vs arab muslim terrorists, they cannot apply such a cultural relativism (politically acceptable racism) viewpoint as easily and must pretend it does not exist...

While I think you're right to say that anti-semitism must be somewhere in the lopsided coverage (and most certainly in any calls for gas chambers) I think a large part of this is going to be the relative profile of the two conflicts. The west only really pays attention to the events in Pakistan because it's got a huge impact on how things go in afghanistan where many countries (my own, Canada included) have troops deployed. Neither the Pakistani military nor the Taliban are really all that interested in media coverage.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have an EXCELLENT PR department.

I don't think that anti-semitism is the sole root of the phenomena you describe. I think that groups like Hamas have had a lot of practise with controlling the media agenda and have consequentially gotten very good at it. On the other hand, the Israeli government kinda sucks at it. At least by comparison, at any rate.

Is the new york times and other american media outlets part of the Palestinian PR department? And I think you mean that hamas PR department, the Palastinians are not one unified whole.

Other possible options

1) We are fighting the same people - so demonstrating against this war would be weird

2) It has not been going on for 40 years

3) The pakistians are not fighting people on occupied terrority

4) Isreali is a 'western' country and we normally hold them to greater account (not saying that we should - just that they are)

1. Hamas has instigated more attacks against the US than al quaida. Al quaida only got lucky once with 9-11 resulting in 3 times the death count of americans than hamas.

2. So?

3. Neither are the israelis. And speaking of occupied territory, when is the USA going to return texas and california to the mexicans?

4. Yes, Israel is held to account... while the hamas, al quida, and pakistan are all given a free pass.

I did suggest that they are either anti semites, or they are anti west. Usually a combination of both.

Is that really an issue for "peace activists"?

Neither would the Israeli-Arab conflict if Israel killed as many people as other countries (say Pakistan) do in these situations.

Is Israel being targeted for criticism because it's too nice to the enemy?

It was my impression that the Taliban consider the territory in question their own, just as the Arab terrorists consider Israel their own.

But your point in a non-sequitur anyway. When Israel fought Hizbullah there were also demonstrations against Israel, and no occupied territory was involved.

Why don't middle-eastern Jews get the "brown people" credit from liberals? Israelis are "white" (from Europe), "brown" (from the Middle-East and North-Africa), and "black" (from Ethiopia). The majority of Israelis are "brown" and none of the Arabs involved are "black". Shouldn't Israel get the brown people credit and hence be the "non-western" noble savage country?

But I find it interesting that once a country recognises equal rights for women and certain rights for homosexuals (i.e when it becomes "western") it has to be helt to greater account. Is that not misogyny and homophobia?

Well, the answer is obviously that it is Anti-Semitism that explains these things.

A "peace activist" does not get up in the morning and without prejudice randomly chooses _Israel_ as his target for making the world a better place.

And it's not the "occupation" either. In the Middle-East alone ALL peoples except the Arabs have been living under occupation. I don't see any Imazighen, Aramean, Assyrian, Koptic, Massalith, Dinka, or Kurdish states. Does anybody else? (The Kurds now have an autonomous region, but it took the invasion of Iraq to get that going.)

If a "peace activist" was worried about "occupation", he could condemn the entire Middle-East, starting from the west with Morocco (an Arab kingdom ruling over a native Imazighen population).

If the "peace activist" was worried about refugees, he could give money to Israel to support the Jewish refugees (of which there were twice as much as Arab refugees).

If he were worried about genocide, there is a very real one in Sudan.

And he is were worried about gay rights, he could stop gay marriage in Maine and doesn't have to worry about Israel being too western.

Once the "peace activist" tells himself that he is not an Anti-Semite, whatever he does, he can safely target Israel and never has to worry about why he chose Israel as the oppressor that needs to be stopped. The "peace activist" is not even worried when he finds himself on the same side as white supremacists and people who execute gay people (and stone women).

And this is how rockets flying into Israel daily from 2003 became an "Israeli aggression in 2009".

Liberals, basically in general, have to learn that the bad thing about Anti-Semites is not that the say bad things about Jews, but that those bad things weren't true. Merely demonstrating how one now says bad things only about half the Jews (and not all Jews) doesn't make the situation better.

Bill Clinton apparently just announced that he believes that if a Jewish extremist had not shot Rabin, there would already be peace.

Stupid me. And I thought it was the fact that Arafat lied, broke the peace treaty, and decided to attack Israel in the "second Intifada" that really put a damper on the peace.

Evil Jews!

I always feel like I'm catching up on discussions during the weekend. 

What type of peace is he talking about or referring to?

I'm also confused on this whole concept of occupied land.  There were always jews in that said land.  Are we giving it back to the original owners? Its always going back to the muslims, so how far back are we going. What dictates how far back we go and why? Is there any defined factors to this? I need to know because I can think of several countries that are currently occupying other people's land and I want to know if I can go protest them but I need to figure out how this whole concept of occupied land works.  What are the characteristics/traits/defines this concept?

I also don't understand how this is even a point because most countries that the current people living in them I'm sure aren't descendants from the original inhabitants.

I get the feeling that this point of occupied land is mostly a point from North America.  Would this be right to say that or is it a European/UK issue that is brought up?

It works like one of the Where's Waldo books. You have to look at a given scenario and find the Jew.

For example, there will be no violent anti-Arab demonstrations over what happens in Sudan because Arab rule over African land is not occupation and murdering all Massalith is not genocide because it is done by Arabs.

However, George W. Bush was clearly controlled by Jews and hence the liberation of Kurdistan from Arab rule is occupation (and, obviously, genocide).

On the other hand Arab rule over Tamazgha (North-Africa) is not occupation and not allowing the native population (the Imazighen) even to use their own language (Tamazight) is not oppression.

It's very easy once you figure out how non-Anti-Semites think.

It is a UK issue as well - I can not comment on mainland Europe but the concept of 'occupied land' is brought up here as well.

As for the concept of occupied lands Isreal is currently occuping East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and has done since 1967.  The land has not been annxed into Isreal, just remained occupied.

Israel has annexed East-Jerusalem in 1981. The world just hasn't recognised the annexation. (Apparently Israel was too Jewish or not communist enough.)

So from your point of view and mine, East-Jerusalem is not "occupied".

As for Gaza, it is not occupied at all. There is no single Israeli soldier in the Gaza strip.

The West-Bank is still occupied, with, according to the 1994 peace treaty, the consent of the population.

There is only a difference between "occupied" and "annexed" in democratic countries anyway. For the Massalith and Fur in Darfur, it doesn't make a difference whether their homeland is officially "occupied" or officially an integral part of an Arab state. They have no rights either way.

The Arabs of the West-Bank can vote, in their own elections. If they wanted to become Israelis instead, they'd be very welcome; IF they wanted to become Israelis and support the Jewish state, NOT if they want to kill the Jews.