Its not the nice people that I worry about. They generally aren't the ones who advocate killing their political enemies. When someone starts talking about "smashing" someone, and they aren't being metaphorical, you have a problem.

This is precisely why I would never go to any of those anti-war rallies--i will never march along with a crowd if anyone there has an anti-semitic sign, or something else equally hateful. That their fellow protestors don't seem to mind marching alongside such hateful elements tells you something...

Jeesh Michael, that is a lot of justification for posting the picture of a racist bigot.

As with many things, it speaks for itself.

The left is quickly turning into a cess pool of anti-semitism. That this surprises anyone - or justifies an explaniation for poiting it out - does confuse me a good bit.

Michael, be prepared to catch a lot of flack on this. But, you also have a lot of support. Bravo!

Um, how do you know that he wasn't challenged by anyone?

It's pretty easy to get a photo of a loon at a demonstration. Lord knows, there are enough looney signs at right-wing demos as well. But why single one out as though it represents all of the people there?

The main reason you don't see pictures like this in the press is that there sorts of signs simply did not show up at the major peace rallies.

I don't know about SF. I've never been to a rally there. But I did attend rallies in Boston, NYC, and DC during the run up to the war. I never once saw a sign such as this one. And while I saw stupid socialists and plenty of signs that made widely speculative ideas about the motives for war, cultural respect was across the board. Yes, people brought signs that protested the Israeli occupation of the occupied territories. But, considering that 150,000 Israelis just marched against the occupation in Tel Aviv, I don't think this is too radical.

I would love to know where and in what context this picture was taken. I would like to know a lot more about who organized the rally. LGF, for what its worth, has a far right agenda on Israel's relationship with the Palestinians.

It is extraordinarily unfair to suggest that this might be common or even tolerated at any major peace rally.

>>>"It is extraordinarily unfair to suggest that this might be common or even tolerated at any major peace rally."

He seems to be well tolerated from where I'm looking at it.

He seems to be well tolerated from where I'm looking at it.

You mean from in front of your computer? Context, man! What rally, where is this guy, who's around him? There were a bunch of "God Hates Fags" jackasses protesting in fron of Cambridge, MA city hall the night that they started issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples. I could have snapped a couple of close up shots and made all sorts of wild claims.

"Smash the state the Jewish state" is not a sentiment condoned, approved of, or voiced by the mainstream peace movement and it is not one that any sane person in the anti-war crowd holds. Guilt by association is an underhanded ploy in the first place, failing to even establish the association is ever worse.

Get your head out of the sand. The context is that signs like this have been carried at "peace" protests on a repeated basis.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/mercurynews/living/people/family/5617576.htm

and

http://www.yourish.com/archives/2003/mar30-apr5_2003.html

and

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030328/sf09.shtml

and

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.04.04/news11.html

To those of us who observe the Left, this isn't news. The only news is that you think this is unusual.

Thanks for the links.

Links 1, 3 and 4 apply to incidents documented by an ADL report on anti-semiticism that applies mostly to Northern California and which isn't specifically tied to the peace movement (but rather tied to anti-Israel, pro-Paelstinian movements based in and around SF universities). Link 2 is unclear as to what it applies to, but I assume it's the posting on the rally in Paris.

The anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian movements on SF area campuses are not the peace movement, are not the anti-war crowd, and have virtually nothing to do with the mainstream, nationwide pro-peace movement. The right's attempts to merge these seperate ideologies is disgraceful.

As I made clear above, I attended numerous peace rallies across the east coast. I never once saw a sign advocating the sentiment displayed in the picture Michael posts. Such sentiment was not, ever, endorsed by the overwhelming majority of attendees of these rallies, and as far as I could tell, never tolerated.

I did not attend, nor do I plan to attend anti-Israel rallies. These are quite seperate from the peace movement.

Your links are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>>>"The right's attempts to merge these seperate ideologies is disgraceful."

Are you kidding me? There are dozens upon dozens of different causes regularly marching together under the "peace" banner. If you don't like it, then don't allow it

Blaming the right for "merging" them this what's really disgraceful though.

I'm left of center, and I always assumed the worst anti semites in America come from The "far" right groups. I'm graced with being born a southerner and all the Klansmen and Aryan Brotherhood guys, along with the leaders of local skinhead groups, well they almost all vote Republican.

Look at the picture closely. He doesn;t even look like a lefty. I'm guessing people assume these types are not infesting their ranks, but guess what, they infest everywhere.

Fanaticism is not a Muslim commodity.

Yeah, look how all the other real peace protestors harrass him. That skinhead (wearing a hat) looks absolutely terrified.

This pictures brings back memories of attending a "peace" rally in early 1991 when I bought into the "it's all about OIL!" meme. One of the first speakers got up and told us that we needed to bring our troops home from the Gulf, and the audience applauded. Next he shouted that once the troops were back home, they needed to "turn the guns around" and kill the oppressors who sent them there, and the audience went wild, pounding its hands in approval. That was my epiphany. I got up and left, too timid to call the speaker but never to attend another "peace" rally.

I still find it hysterical that - on at least one occasion - one protester with a "Bush = Hitler" sign has stood next to another protester with a sign similiar to "Smash the Jewish State".

If only the picture would show up, my life would be complete. I know it will come - all I have to do is wait.

"Look at the picture closely. He doesn;t even look like a lefty."

What do lefty's look like?

Do they look like this:

http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11322_The_Enemy_at_Home

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11313_Stop_War_End_Racism_Kill_Americans

(in the link above, notice the explicit advocacy of violence in the yellow flyer, by a supposed anti-war protester)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11275_Roman_Intifada

Maybe they look like this instead:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10860

Actually, the man in this photo that Michael posted looks pretty similar to all the others.

And he looks NOTHING like this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10952

harry,

There was an International A.N.S.W.E.R. rally that went from the White House to Donald Rumsfeld's house this past Saturday. That route happened to go right in front of my apartment, and I stepped outside with some of my neighbors and watched them march.

There were signs for many causes - mostly obviously Iraq related, but amongst the signs there:

"Zionism is to Judaism as Christianity is to Nazism"

And Israeli flags with the Star of David replaced by a swastika.

And then the usual "End Israeli State Terrorism" and "Support Violent Resistance" and "Long Live the Intifada" etc...

No one in the crowd was confronting the Nazism/Swastika people - they were laughing and having a great old time. This guy would have fit in just fine.

Okay, Michael, I'll conceed that folks like this guy conviently don't get covered that much at leftist "peace" rallies. You've got a point there.

But what about all the hyped-up coverage of WTO protesters?! Seattle comes to mind. The vast majority of anti-globalization protesters are not, nor have they ever been, the militant Black Bloc anarchists they get portrayed as. I don't agree with the cause, I'm as pro-globalization as the next guy, but I'll defend these people from a dishonest full-frontal corporate media assult until the cows come home.

If you're gonna call out a biased and agenda-driven media for one sin, you might as well call them out for another. Sure, they are liberal and so it makes sense that they'd want to throw as much support behind the anti-war cause as possible. But they're all also owned by mega-corporations and Republican contributors (GE, Disney, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch).

You're a brutally honest guy, politically, Michael. It's what makes you so fun to read. Stick to playing fair.

"But they're all also owned by mega-corporations and Republican contributors (GE, Disney, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch)."

What does this have to do with ANYTHING? If it were true that big corporations prevented liberal bias in the media, CBS would be the darling of the right.

The vast majority of anti-globalization protesters are not, nor have they ever been, the militant Black Bloc anarchists they get portrayed as.

I suggest you start paying attention. Amateur photographers show the truth of these people:

http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/

They are advocates of violence and openly wish for the deaths of American soldiers. They're not militant anarchists. They're militant terrorist supporters.

whoops! This should've been quoted:

"The vast majority of anti-globalization protesters are not, nor have they ever been, the militant Black Bloc anarchists they get portrayed as."

LGF and other right wingers have moved past merely photoshopping pictures. They now take their "wacky" signs to rallies, take a photo of their plant amongst the real participants, then rush it off the the website for major outrage.

How do I know? I know someone who dated one of the little trolls involved. Definative proof? I don't have that for you, but it makes a lot more sense than believing the crap being claimed by LGF and now Mr. Totten here.

Since supporters of this administration can't admit anything, even when faced with damning evidence, I expect the frothing haters from the right to call bullshit on me...but that's okay.

Harry and others with a clue, I share with you my evidence. Kind of makes sense now doesn't it?

Um, how do you know that he wasn't challenged by anyone?

I remember this dude from the SF rally and I commented about it on your site last year Michael. He was carrying some equally offensive sign about Jews and Israel which I challenged then and he told me to "fuck off". I suppose Stu might have punched him in the mouth but what are we chickenhawks suppose to do? It's the same guy and from what I could see nobody seemed to mind a bit marching along side of this nutcase. Maybe most people see him as an oddball, but they wouldn't allow a white-supremist a "Smash civil rights" sign to join their parade would they?

oh my god, photoshop?

aaaargh !!!

It's impossible to even talk with you people.

Fuck off then. Next time I see one of you terror-enabling moonbats I'm going to punch you in the face. That's the only discussion you deserve.

Grant: If you're gonna call out a biased and agenda-driven media for one sin, you might as well call them out for another.

You are absolutely right, Grant. I hadn't put one and one together because I haven't thought much about the anti-globo people much in a while. I know those anti-globo people, though. Most of them ARE normal, and the media refuses to portray them that way.

That's because the media is pro-globalization and anti-war. They're biased. Seriously biased. It's amazing how transparent it is to me.

You could say the media do to the anti-globalization rallies what I do to the anti-war protests. But, again, I am not the entire media here. I run one opinionated Web site trying to balance out some of the media's imbalance.

Still, though, I gotta say. The radical black bloc anarchists should be shunned at anti-globalization rallies. Those are the creeps that threw a molotov cocktail at a coffeeshop down the street from me a few weeks ago. They're violent punks who need to have their asses kicked by somebody, preferably by sane leftists and liberals, not to mention the police.

Aloo parantha: I expect the frothing haters from the right to call bullshit on me...but that's okay.

First of all, Dave Rodriguez (d-rod) is a personal friend of mine who happens to not even be a Republican, let alone a right-wing LGF troll. And he lives in the same town as the guy in the picture. If he says he recognizes him, I believe him. His evidence trumps your conspiracy theory. Don't like it? Lump it.

Second, since when does opposition to racism put me in the "frothing haters" camp?

Think about my zero-tolerance-for-stupid-trolls policy before answering that question. I'm giving you rope to hang yourself with. Let's see if you're smart enough not to take it.

speaking of your zero policy, my own comments were somewhat precipitous and I apologize beforehand.

David,

Cool. Thanks.

Sigh. Way to totally twist my words there, Sydney. I never once said there weren't black-bloc anarchists within the anti-globalization movement and I'd be the first to tell you that they are, indeed, terrorists. I was simply claiming, and I thought I was pretty clear in what I did and did not say, that the overwhelming majority of anti-globalization activists are not violent or militant or in any way on the same page with the Black Bloc...but that they get covered that way by the media, especially after Seattle. Part of this is pure sensationalism. If it bleeds it leads, so they say. But some of this, alot of this, IS orchastrated to discredit a cause critical of mega-corporate dominance. You shouldn't be so shocked by the notion that GE/Disney/Viacom have some pretty damn big vested interests in maintaining the ascendency of free-trade policies.

And, secondly, I never once said that corporations prevent liberal bias in the media. I pretty explicitly said, in fact, that the media IS liberal. Again, you twist my words, so let me expound upon this. The mainstream media has two distinct ideological agendas: Contemporary Liberalism and Corporatism. So long as the liberal causes highlighted by media elites don't cross the corporatist causes championed by the media owners, the media elites pretty much get their way. Otherwise, as is the case with globalization issues, the owners pull more weight.

I know I'm coming off like Ralph Nader here, and if you know me or know my politics at all, you ought to be scratching your head. I'm a big fan of free trade (for economic growth, for economic development, and mostly for the potential of spreading liberal democratic ideals). I'm also a Centrist-Liberal New Democrat, the scourge of the Naderites and the embodiment of what he would call "tweedle-dee liberal corporatism". I am more or less BOTH pro-business and pro-liberal, more or less supportive of the notion that what's good for GE is good for America AND more or less supportive of the big liberal social causes.

I just felt I had to call you out pretty harshly for twisting my words and that I owed it to you and to everybody else to set the record straight on how the corporate-owned liberal-media works. If you still don't buy into my theory of the dual liberal/corporatist power dynamic, just stop and ask yourself two questions...

1. Why is it that, in the absence of the old-school liberal-media influence, FOX NEWS still tends to promote pro-business ideology? Why not a more populist-style conservatism, like Pat Buchanan promotes? (what possible forces are at work to prevent it!)

2. And why is it that, in the absence of the corporate ownership, nearly every independent media outlet still tends to promote the liberal line? Why not a more conservative-style populism, instead? (again, what possible forces prevent it!)

Maybe I'm just nuts, but I think Grant nailed it. Except for that bit about Fox. Fox doesn't promote the Buchanan line because that would be stupid, it wouldn't sell, and Ruport Murdock would scream.

You know, maybe it was innappropriate, David, but if you do wind up punching the next anti-American leftist you see in the face...make sure and take a picture for me.

I despise them nearly as much for giving sane pro-American liberals like myself a bad name.

>>>"I despise them nearly as much for giving sane pro-American liberals like myself a bad name."

That they do.

I don't know if this guys a skinhead, Michael. He's wearing a Red Star on his cap. We all know what that means.

So, you wanna convince yourself that you're virtuous by finding bad people who disagree with you.

That's analysis?

Yawn.

Michael...

Okay, I beg to differ in one small degree. You're right in saying that it would be stupid and that Rupert Murdoch (am I spelling that right or are you) would scream. But you're wrong in thinking it wouldn't sell. Dead wrong.

It would sell like hotcakes, man. The majority in this country, today at least, is socially slightly to the Right and economically slightly to the Left (more with the Dems on economics and the Reps on "values"). You and I aren't, but it doesn't mean our parents' generation isn't.

The model I'm trying to present here isn't so much Pat Buchanan. Pat is way way too far to the Right on social issues. Leaving his hawkish brilliance on foreign policy aside, I'm thinking more like John McCain. McCain is moderately conservative on social issues and slightly left-of-center on economic ones. In essence, he is a Reagan Democrat's wet dream.

A news channel that pushed the Baby-Boomer-Reagan-Democrat line would, in my opinion, draw in some pretty amazing ratings. It wouldn't get a whole lot of our more libertarian-leaning generation's attention, but it would essentially reunify the New Deal Coalition in modern times for the old folks.

I think maybe you're blinded a bit from seeing this by your own beliefs and the world you know in urban Portland. Out here in the land of corn, I know what I'm talking about. In other words, there's a reason Ohio has voted with the past 8 or so winning candidates for President.

And PS...

Today's socially conservative but economically liberal pulse-of-the-nation Ohio, I predict will give way to tomorrow's socially liberal but economically conservative pulse-of-the-nation New Hampshire or Washington or dare I say it, Oregon. We're much more libertarian-minded and it's only a matter of time before our day comes.

Starting in 2008 or 2012, your home state might just start a new streak of picking 8 winners in a row.

I will offer a rare defense of the media.

The trouble with the media coverage of anti-globalization protests is that the movement is a fish stew of ideologies with no coherent message to offer. Who even knows what most of the people out in the street are protesting about? From what I saw in Chicago in 2002, the protesters include anarchists, Sierra Club types, socialists, communists, garden-variety yahoos and violent hooligans.

Often the only common thread the media can find is that anti-globalization protests frequently end in violence. Since violence is frowned upon in Western societies, the turning over of automobiles, throwing rocks at police, firebombing Starbucks and that sort of thing tends to get played in the news.

It probably isn't fair, but who remembers the hundreds of peaceful protestors at the 1968 Democratic Convention? The message is fairly clear: If you don't like the way the media portrays the anti-globalization movement, get rid of the guys with the Molotov cocktails.

Roger: I don't know if this guys a skinhead, Michael. He's wearing a Red Star on his cap. We all know what that means.

Yeah, I know. What's the difference these days? I'm seeing less and less. Stick a white sheet on him and it wouldn't change much.

Mork: So, you wanna convince yourself that you're virtuous by finding bad people who disagree with you.

That's analysis?

What would you say if the guy was wearing a white sheet and marching with conservatives against affirmative action? Would you be so flip? I sure wouldn't be. I think that would be a huge big deal, and if Republicans got bent out of shape for my drawing attention to it I would not think more highly of them. I just can't believe people like him are tolerated by anybody, left, right, up, or down. I would really have to restrain myself from spitting in his face.

Trust me, Mork, you don't want people like that in the anti-war coalition. And neither do I. You know I don't agree with you about the war, but I would far prefer guys like that be pitched over the side and for my own hawkish side in this debate to shrink a bit because of it. It's an exchange I'll gladly make. This crap just gets more legitimized if it isn't smacked down hard, and pro-military people just can't be the only ones doing the smacking. I'm not trying to score points off you, I'm posting this because I'm appalled that a certain kind of racism is on the rise. I've spent my whole life watching racism decline and I guess I was naive in thinking it would continue to do so.

Grant: I think maybe you're blinded a bit from seeing this by your own beliefs and the world you know in urban Portland. Out here in the land of corn, I know what I'm talking about.

Hmm. I dunno. I lived in Iowa for four years. But I lived in Iowa City, which is more like Berkeley than it is like Des Moines. I'll have to think about what you're saying.

Sorry to hog my own comments section. Let me just say one more thing to Mork.

Mork, next time you're at an anti-war rally (assuming you even go, which may not be the case) and you see some dipshit holding up an idiotic hateful placard, just yell at him for me and I'll be happy. That's all I'm trying to say. Help me (re)make it socially unacceptable to be like that.

Totten:
...friend of mine who happens to not even be a Republican, let alone a right-wing LGF troll. And he lives in the same town as the guy in the picture. If he says he recognizes him, I believe him. His evidence trumps your conspiracy theory

Like I said, I don't expect someone who has no stomach for facts to believe me. You believe the hearsay from your friends, I'll believe mine.

Second, since when does opposition to racism put me in the "frothing haters" camp?

Since you sourced from a frothing hater site, I guess you might get lumped into the same scene as them. Oh, here this might help. It's kind of like how you painted a whole protest by some loon (real or not) - you don't like the other end of the stick? That's shocking.

PS - how many "...and he isn't even a Republican!" type people do you know? You seem to know so many of those guys, are they all in one town or is there a website (other than this one, of course)

Good comments Michael,

BTW did anybody see Sean Hannity bring Ted Rall into the studio tonight so that he could call him "a slob?"

People like Ted Rall need to be condemned by right and left alike.

Michael - a lot more words, but it boils down to the same thing: you want to make everyone you disagree with responsible for the beliefs of everyone else you disagree with.

It's simple-minded bullshit. I am no more in "coalition" with that fellow that you are with the Pat Robertson right. This is not debate, Michael, it's an excuse for not debating.

And for the record, I don't for a second think that the fact that racists oppose affirmative action means that everyone who opposes affirmative action on other grounds is a racist, or needs to explain away or apologise for those who are. And in my view, anyone who argues otherwise is either simple-minded, or arguing in bad faith.

And, to be honest, I see very little evidence of an upsurge in racism or anti-semitism. I only hear of stuff like this from people like you who seek it out. Sure, criticism of Israel generally has risen, but then there are a lot more reasons for liberal-minded people to be critical of Israel than there were a few years ago. Obviously, some of that spills over into excess, and it gives the anti-semites who are always around something to focus on, but where's the evidence of any significant change in the way people behave towards one another?

Mork, next time you're at an anti-war rally (assuming you even go, which may not be the case)

Never been to one ... I supported the war at the time, remember, and I support the U.S. staying at the moment. Nor am I in any sense a pacifist. I just think that on a cost-benefit analysis, it was an enormous mistake - for reasons that should have been clear at the time - and the mendacity and incompetence of the Administration pisses me off. I think that makes me a moderate Republican!

But I would have no hesitation in telling a vocal anti-semite what I thought of him.

saag paneer,

You're getting dangerously close to being a troll.

Since you sourced from a frothing hater site

A "frothing hater" site that exposes and opposes frothing haters. Yeah, whatever.

It's kind of like how you painted a whole protest by some loon

Boy, did I ever not do that. I got upbraided above for belaboring the point that plenty of nice, decent, well-meaning people attend peace rallies. Either read my post and respond to what I actually say or go away. You can't strawman me on my own Web site and think I won't notice it.

PS - how many "...and he isn't even a Republican!" type people do you know?

The overwhelming majority of my friends and acquaintances are Democrats, and half of them are hawks. My wife is a Bush-hating Democrat and also a hawk. Does that combo just make your brain hurt or what?

are they all in one town

No.

Mork: I supported the war at the time, remember

Actually, I don't think I knew that.

you want to make everyone you disagree with responsible for the beliefs of everyone else you disagree with

No, I think you're completely missing my point here. I don't know if it's my fault or yours.

I am no more in "coalition" with that fellow that you are with the Pat Robertson right.

I've thrashed Pat Robertson in public, and he would hate my guts if he knew me. He and I are definitely not comrades. If I were a Republican I'd thrash Robertson even more often than I have, because I couldn't stand to be in the same party as him without drawing a line.

And, to be honest, I see very little evidence of an upsurge in racism or anti-semitism.

I do. And it bothers me. I recommend The Return of Anti-Semitism by Gabriel Schoenfeld. If I thought this was still a waning problem it would be basically off my radar.

Mork,

Also check out this essay in The New Republic called The Wall.

MJT,

If I did and I saw a guy with a sign that said "Smash Muslim States," I'd call him out on it.

Would you call out someone who carried a sign that said "Smash the Islamic Republic of Iran?"

The most interesting aspect of Michael's piece is the (unintentional?) endorsement of the attitudes of the mainstream media.

Like them, he chooses to focus on the "most newsworthy" i.e. most inflammatory part of an event and letting that stand as the overarching definition of the event. In the comments, he seems to come to a realization about how the media do this with the anti-globo rallies, but it is far more pevasive that that. Why the emphasis on "bad news" from Iraq rather than a balanced view that incorporates all the good things happening in the lives of average people? Same reason as here. Quite normal (church)going people going about their lives, having quiet opinions, does not sell newspapers or attact bandwith. It aint "interesting".

Demonstrations are public events, and this is a free country. I find it extremely disingenuous for people to claim that a group of people who gather to proclaim thier opinions on some matter have a PRIMARY responsibility to go around to the other free people who show up, to police their messages. I've been to demos, and I've seen plenty of nutcases saying things that I disagreed with. It never occurred to me to pick fights with them, or to try to shut them up. That is not what I was there for. Maybe this is part of the reason that I dont particularly like demos, and have gone more for the curiosity factor.

But these types of demos are not contolled staged events like a political party rally, or, in the extreme, a nazi-Nuremburg type event. They are a gathering of free people, speaking freely, and, just like on the web, they attract all manner of wierdos. The focus of the organizers and most of the participants is to get their message across. Not to be thought police for any and everyone that tags along.

I think the media, and Michael here, do a great disservice by singling out the wierdos and pretending that they represent the important or defining issue of the event.

Michael,

Buchanan hasn't been a Republican in a LONG time. Basically pushed out. The Republican party has been doing a better job at taking care of its rejects through demotion or expulsion(Buchanan, Lott) while the Democratic party ignores theirs or gives them even more exposure (Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, Hollings).

Hey, at least the guy didn't replace all the "s" letters with swastikas.

Seriously, through, am I the only one suspicious that this photo is a fake?

If the protestor was a radical Muslim, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But "Smash the Jewish State" doesn't seem like the phrase of a middle-aged white anti-war protestor. The western anti-Semitic/anti-Israel types like to do the whole Israel = Nazi thing, the whole Israel = terrorism thing, but this one just seems out of place.

Yup. Thats it.

Its a photoshop.

And those towers in the distance with the smoke coming out of them are just a coal burning nuclear power plant the Fuher thought up.

Denial will only assure that the anti-semitism grows by leaps and bounds. But hey, far be it from me to stop the left from destroying itself by embracing and defending rank anti-semitism. Go to town guys!

Republicans would love to have the Jewish vote :)

Sorry if this is a bit provacative, and un-Pc, but I am a bit uneasy with the assumption that this is necessarily a case of anti-Semitism.

The sign does not say "kill the jews", nor does it say "smash the jews". It says, quite specifically "smash the jewish STATE" (emphasis mine).

Personally, I dont find it unreasonable to suspect anti-semitism here, but I wouldnt find it unreasonable to suspect a non-anti-semitic motivation as well.

As an American, I am a strong and passionate believer in the notion of a secular state. That the state exists to carry out the civic coordinating functions of a free society, and should have nothing whatsoever to do with religous or ethnic identity issues. Israel, and Zionism in general seem to me to be representative not of American values in this regard, but more of nineteenth century european nationalism - the environment in which the movement was founded.

Lets make a comparison. Imagine the US state, fundamentally the same as what it is now, but with the difference that we were to explicitly define the state as a "white Christian state". And that the symbols of whiteness and christianity were to be the symbols of the country. And though non-whites and non-christians could vote, and have equal rights within the system, they could only do so by accepting the religous/ethnic frame. And it would be obviuosly clear that the goals of the state were to advance the interests of whites and christians - the rest would just be tagging along - treated well within that context, but only within that context.

Would any of you support that? The percentage of Americans who are white and christian is almost as high as the percentage of jews in Israel.

Once again, I acknowledge that the sign is rather crude, provocative and may well be reflective of an antisemitic attitude. But I wouldnt necessarily assume it. It is also consistent with other interpretations.

Roark,

It seems like you're accusing me of "embracing and defending rank anti-Semitism." If that's what you mean, you can go fuck yourself.

If that's not what you meant, then I suggest you simply be aware that not everything on the internet is true. Don't give your bank account to any former Nigerian oil ministers.

"If that's what you mean, you can go fuck yourself."

Ok. I'll do that. Just as soon as I crawl out of my hole.

There is no downside to this for me. You guys ignore, explain and justify this anti-semitism as long as you want. Rationalize it away like the most recent guy, or jsut hint that it might be a Photoshop job and dismiss it. Whatever floats your boat.

In the end, this type of action will taint the left with the unmanagable and persistent smell of "racist" for generations to come.

Of course, my party stands to score big with the scads of Jewish people who will suddenly realize they are voting for a party that has decided to perform a real life re-enactment of the runup to the Holocaust, complete with appeasers, denials and justifications.

By the way Tano, you do a great Hitler. You just captured, in a few short paragraphs, most of what he said in Mein Kapmf. I would be appaled if I thought you had actually read it, but I realize now that you came to it on your own. THAT is scary in itself, but just another indication of how corrupt the far left is becoming these days.

I'm starting to feel like a troll on Michael's boards so i'm gonna ease out. You all can fling feces at me on the way out to your hearts content but I can seem to escape the feeling that I have become one of Michael's problem children. I don't have time for it and i'm sure he does not either.

I'll keep that date with myself though, don't you worry about that ;)

As a Jew*, I don't like being told I "ignore, explain, and justify this anti-Semitism" just because I wonder if this particular photo is fake.

I can't speak for all American Jews, but I assure you most of us do not believe the Democrats have "decided to perform a real life re-enactment of the runup to the Holocaust". If you really believe this, then you are too far off in fantasy-land to bother with.

• "Oberon" is a screen name. Real name is "Oberonstein."

Tano, sometime you can nuance yourself into logical non existance! Let's analyze the statement:
"Smash the Jewish state"
The poster is advocating violence against a nation noted for what? It's Jewishness. He is not praising it. He is deriding it. What is the notable description of the state he is deriding? It's Jewishness. The casual judenhassen of the sign is obvious to anyone. He hates a state, for what reason? It's Jewishness

billhedrick,
There is a difference between hating a state and hating a people. Antisemitism refers to hating a people.
If you wree to shout "smash the islamic STATES", that could equally (or more properly) be seen as an opposition to religously defined states, rather than a hostility to the people. We as a nation seem pretty much to be trying to thread that line.

It is possible to stand forthright in defense of the rights of people to live in peace, equality and to have the right to prosper and fluorish without necessarily supporting their right to establish an ethnic/religous governmental apparatus to rule not only them, but a significant minority who have different ethnicities and religions.

Tano--

Then why didn't the sign say "Smash Israel!"

Honestly, don't you know the first rule about holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

>>>"BTW did anybody see Sean Hannity bring Ted Rall into the studio tonight so that he could call him "a slob?"

Rational discussion with the Left (and I don't mean reasonable liberals like Michael and Grant) is a complete waste of time. Hannity knows this. The appropriate tactic therefore is to go ad hominem on them, just as these Leftists do with us. Ridicule, shame them, call them stupid names. It's all they deserve. And if you can do it publicly, so much the better.

Oberon said, "As a Jew*, I don't like being told I 'ignore, explain, and justify this anti-Semitism' just because I wonder if this particular photo is fake."

Oberon, being a Jew does not give you an automatic last word on what is and is not anti-Semitism. To illustrate this in the starkest of terms, tens of thousands of German and Austrian Jews also denied the true nature of the tide against them until it was far too late.

I can imagine some of those people had non-Jewish friends who tried to tell them how bad things were getting, and advised them to get out while they could. But most of the Jews then were certain things wouldn't get any worse, that German non-Jews couldn't possibly turn against their own Jewish friends and neighbors, that it was just a few rabble-rousers who bought into this terrible stuff, not real people with real authority.

No, I'm definitely not saying that Jews are about to rounded up here in the US. I'm using Germany and Austria (and France, and Poland, and Italy, and Czechoslovakia, etc) as examples that the "I'm a Jew, so of course I'd never ignore or rationalize away anti-Semitism" argument doesn't wash. In fact, self-delusion is too often the most widespread delusion there is. People frequently refuse to see what they don't wish to see.

By the way, I'm a Jew too, and the way too many folks on the left excoriate Israel for behavior they accept without comment from every single other country and ethnic group (except perhaps the US) scares the bejeezuz out of me. Feel free, Oberon, as a Jew, to view the left's clear double standard concerning the Jewish State meaningless, but I won't.

Smash the muslim states.

I'm all for it. Iran is next, and then Syria.

We don't have to kill more than a few thousand in each. It will be a humane smashing of course, because we're a humane people, just like those "peace" protesters.

But let's do some smashing! God bless America.

FA,
Now seriously, would your reaction have been any different if that is what the sign said?

Seems to me that "smash israel" would be even more ambiguous. As it is, he specified the "state".

Thank you david for making my point.

Although his view is hardly mainstream, he can certainly say these things, as millions of other americans do, without any fear of being labeled a racist anti-arabist, nor have his message pilloried on a website such as this.

Tano,

of course I can say these things. It's not racist apparently. And even if it were, it appears that the Left allows such hatred against Jews, so why should this website allow it against muslims? We should smash All religious states, not just the Jewish one. Isn't that fair?

Laura,

Take a deep breath, Laura. Exhale. Relax. All I did was wonder if the photo was real. I trust anonymous people at LGF as little as I trust IndyMedia.

I do not "view the left's clear double standard concerning the Jewish State meaningless."

I do not believe, nor did I claim, that being a Jew gives me "an automatic last word on what is and is not anti-Semitism."

Are we clear on that?

"If you wree to shout "smash the islamic STATES", that could equally (or more properly) be seen as an opposition to religously defined states, rather than a hostility to the people."

Tano,

those are your words. Apparently you agree with me then. I have nothing against the people of those countries, I only hate muslim-defined states. Let's smash them.

and then you say this:

Although his view is hardly mainstream, he can certainly say these things, as millions of other americans do, without any fear of being labeled a racist anti-arabist, nor have his message pilloried on a website such as this.

how bout you make up your friggin mind. Is it hate or not?

Tano--

Don't be naive. This guy is not protesting Israel's policies on air pollution. Nor is he suggesting that the Likud party is evil, or that Sharon is a bad guy, or even that Israel mistreats Palestinians. He is expressing his desire for Israel to be destroyed. This is not a constructive political comment worthy of defense.

This guy and all others like them deserve to be pilloried, here and everywhere. The thoughts they espouse are despicable and inseparable from racism.

Could it be just a leftist pose? Possibly. But his hand-written message is pretty straightforward, and I don't think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Do I defend his right to make a total jerk of himself in public? Of course, just as I defend yours, Tano.

Oberon said (rather condescendingly), "I do not believe, nor did I claim, that being a Jew gives me 'an automatic last word on what is and is not anti-Semitism.' Are we clear on that?"

We are now, Oberon. But you yourself did write, "As a Jew*, I don't like being told I 'ignore, explain, and justify this anti-Semitism' just because I wonder if this particular photo is fake."

It's hard not to take those words as anything but "I'm a Jew, so you can't tell me I might be ignoring anti-Semitism." Thus my response.

I'll respond to what you actually say, Oberon. Not what you hope, think, or imagine you say.

Are we clear on that?

Oof. Whatta lotta discussion one loon has birthed.

1. When people question if something is photoshopped, don't go all nuclear on their ass. I've heard the same thing about the Abu Ghraib photos, the photos of that jerk with the Iraqi kids, etc. Skeptisism about photos is probably a healthy thing, even if driven by an unwillingness to believe the obvious.

2. It's not hard to find loons at demonstrations, of any political stripe. It's pretty lame to extrapolate their badly-printed opinions to the rest of the crowd, even if you don't like what the rest of the crowd is supporting, or do like what they're opposing. It's even lamer to insist that because the loon isn't being beaten by the crowd that they then share the loon's opinion.

3. Please, can we give the "I'll give them a punch in the mouth" talk a break? It's embarrassing. Plus, are we so down the road of polarization that freedom of speech has been tossed overboard? Shouldn't loons have the right to express stupid opinions without being assaulted? Or are your own values built on such shaky ground that a nutball with a sign is such a threat to them that you need to bluster like this?

Contrary to what Roger Simon says, the man in the picture is definately from the reactionary right, not the left, despite what appears to be a red star. A Maoist, Stalinist or Trotskyite would call for smashing the "Zionist" state. My guess is that he is affiliated with the Liberty Lobby or the National Alliance.

I won't say there is no antisemitism on the Left, but I will say there is a difference between antisemitism of the Left and the Right. Antisemites of the Left hate the "Jews" for what they accuse them of doing, and this almost exclusively involves the actions of the state of Israel. Antisemites of the Right hate the Jews for who they are.

I just lost a long post to computer problems, but all I can say is that I'm amazed at the lenghts to which Tano, Markus Rose, to a lesser extent dpu, and others will go to defend the indefensible.

Also, Markus Rose's mind-reading powers amaze me.

But, it is a nice corner he's backed himself into. If you find the presence of members of the "reactionary right" at "peace" rallies organized by the "left" to be a defense of the "left", then the "left" truly is in desparate shape.

The Left is already on record as saying that Israel should not be a Jewish state, it should not be a religious state, because that's unfair to palestinians. Smash the Jewish state is simply the bumpersticker way of saying it. That red star is a Leftist symbol. That sign isn't photoshopped.

"But what about all the hyped-up coverage of WTO protesters?! Seattle comes to mind. The vast majority of anti-globalization protesters are not, nor have they ever been, the militant Black Bloc anarchists they get portrayed as. I don't agree with the cause, I'm as pro-globalization as the next guy, but I'll defend these people from a dishonest full-frontal corporate media assult until the cows come home."

Simple answer, Grant. If you don't want these people to be covered in the news, then disinvite them to the parade. Let them know they're not welcome. Because if you march along side them, you're giving support to their cause.

And, to be honest, I see very little evidence of an upsurge in racism or anti-semitism.

Funny as those who insist that racism is "internalized" can't come to terms with the fact that the much older fashion of hating Jews has not only been internalized but Globalized. I don't recall any "Zionist" cemeteries being vanalized in Europe.

As another poster said earlier. Get your head out of the sand. I used to not have an itchy anti-semtism triggerfinger but not anymore. I changed my mind when, several years ago, where at a party filled with intellecutally-beautiful grad students, a christian-lite European who disagreed with the anti-"Zionist" conventional wisdom of praising Arafat and daming BiBi or any Israeli (this was even Pre-Sharon!) was "Kiked" before the company present and those who objected (interestingly enough, mostly us double-plus-ungood engineers and science types who were already in the minority) were told that they weren't welcome. I was even asked at one point where my last name "came from" (as was recently done to Tony Blair). Since then, I've seen it for what it is.

Don't ever tell me that the Olde Time Religion of Jew-Hatin' isn't on the rise. If so, you will simply be conceeding that it has always been there.

David,
It is not me that needs to make up my friggin mind, it is you who needs to calmly read what I said. I have been quite consistent.

I have said that, although this particular person may be an anti-semite, I do not automatically assume so, for it is possible to be opposed to the nature of the state without being opposed to the existence, of happiness or equality of the people.

So the sign may not in fact be an expression of hate against the people. Nor do I take your comments about islamic states as necessarily a reflection of a hatred of arabs. I merely pointed out that you are the beneficiary of the general understanding that antistate does not equal antipeople. And so that benefit of the doubt should be extended to others.

>>>"a christian-lite European who disagreed with the anti-"Zionist" conventional wisdom of praising Arafat and daming BiBi or any Israeli (this was even Pre-Sharon!) was "Kiked"

Being a jew amidst Leftists today has much in common with being a christian. You'll be well tolerated as long as you keep your mouth shut. If you don't, you'll be shown in no uncertain terms the meaning of hate.

Markus Rose writes:

Contrary to what Roger Simon says, the man in the picture is definately from the reactionary right, not the left, despite what appears to be a red star. A Maoist, Stalinist or Trotskyite would call for smashing the "Zionist" state. My guess is that he is affiliated with the Liberty Lobby or the National Alliance.

I disagree that he must be far-right based on the use of the word "Jewish." The far-right also uses the term "Zionist" - in fact, they discovered it before the far left did, as they coined the term Zionist Occuppied Government/ZOG.

But it's funny, or sad, because as many people have stated ad nauseum, there's not much difference now between the far-right and the far-left when it comes to views on Israel.

If you watch the far-left convulsions on various IMC websites (for example), you will notice that some posters/writers frequently use the word "Jew" or "Jewish" interchangeably with "Zionist."

From the link forwarded by Sydney Carton:

http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/120-2033_IMG.JPG

Isn't this the same guy in the picture Michael posted?

Your move, Markus.

I find it remarkable the inconsitency of people here. How does the logic work, that it is bad for American to have a religous state, bad for europeans, bad for the muslims, but good for the jews who are living in a land where not everyone is jewish?

At a time when we are forcefully projecting our values around the world, and re-emphasizing the notion that ours are universal values, why are most people here so blind to this obvious contradiction? The secular state has been a fundamental and crucial component of the American value-system that has yielded this land of liberty and freedom. Do y'all believe in it or not?

Mark Polling,

the photographic evidence is already in. But to Markus, that's just more clever photoshopping.

Laura writes:

It's hard not to take those words as anything but "I'm a Jew, so you can't tell me I might be ignoring anti-Semitism." Thus my response.

I'll respond to what you actually say, Oberon. Not what you hope, think, or imagine you say.

That's rich. First you describe how you take my words, which is clearly different from what I wrote, and then you claim you're only responding to what I actually say.

Look, peeps, I am actively involved with a Jewish organization that combats anti-Semitism, among other goals. (I'm on the executive board, I modestly add). I am very aware of the current state of anti-Semitism in this country and around the world, and one of our greatest concerns is the emergence of loony left anti-Semitism, in addition to the traditional sorts of right-wingnut anti-Semitism and certain Muslim/Arab anti-Semitism. We have been studying and speaking out about leftist anti-Semitism on college campuses, in the European left, and other places.

That's why I wondered about the photo. The phrase "Smash the Jewish State" is not typical of the leftist anti-Israel / anti-Semitic protestors. To my knowledge, the leftists who believe Israel has no right to exist generally don't hold signs advocating the violent destruction of Israel. That's the result they want, but it's not the language they employ.

Now, some in the loony left have been allying themselves with the Muslim radicals, and quite possibly the language is bleeding across.

If I had to bet even money, I bet the photo is real. But please don't confuse skepticism over one photo with self-delusion on my part.

An attempt to re-create my longer post:

1. No one is engaging in guilt-by-association. Guilt-by-association would mean assuming that everyone who attends these "peace" rallies automatically shares the sentiments of the guy holding this poster. I don't know if they do or not because I'm not a mind-reader. However, questioning someone's associations (a favorite tactic of the political left with regards to associations, no matter how tangential, with certain corporations, foreign governments etc.) is valid, particularly when they are associations with racists. A moral person would try to avoid associating with racists I would think, even if it was for the promotion of a cause which they thought was moral. At the very least, I would think the many well-meaning people who attend such events, whom MJT went out of his way to call attention to, would be troubled by these type of associations. Apparently, judging by the reaction here, many of them are not. Why not?

2. However, the situation is far more extreme because the association is far more damning and more extensive than I've indicated above. From what I've read, and from what I've observed here in New York, these "peace" demonstrations are organized, funded, and most of the bodies are provided by international ANSWER, a neo-Stalinist organization that supports the regime in North Korea and applauds the "insurgents" in Iraq who are murdering innocent Iraqis, foreign aid workers etc. So, these "well-meaning" people are allowing themselves to be mobilized and organized by neo-Stalinists. Do they find that troubling? If not, why not?

3. This will be more controversial: Shoudn't the company that one keeps on their "side" of an issue be somewhat meaningful. If I found that the marchers on my "side" included neo-Stalinists and Jew-haters I would re-examine my position. I would think that any person with a conscience would.

4. Tano's defense of the sign would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous. "Smash" is rather vivid language don't you think. I can't read the guy's mind, nor would I want to, but I can think of a couple possible interpretations. Rafsanjani of Iran also wants to "smash" Israel with the nuclear weapons his country is racing to acquire. Is he endorsing this view? But someone who wanted to kill 5 million of the 13 million Jews in the world couldn't possibly be anti-Semitic now could they? More likely, he's endorsing some kind of "one-state" solution (now that the Palestinians and their allies on the far left and the far right of American politics have rejected the "two-state" solution which they claimed they wanted). This, of course, would result in the Arabs out-breeding the Jews, making Nazi-style laws against them, and eventually acheiving their stated goal of "pushing them into the sea". But, someone who endorses this goal wouldn't be remotely anti-Semitic now would they?

Tano,

Israel isn't a theocracy, it's a secular state. So there goes your first objection.

Moreover, all the ranting about a "jewish" state is coming from the Left, not from us. And what is this "jewish" state? It's a state where Jews (be they secular or religious) command their own destiny, and are no longer at the whim and mercy of others. This is something conservatives are in complete agreement with, even if the Left is not.

Tano,

Yes, there is a contradiction. Israel struggles every day to be both a state where all Israelis are equal -- Jewish, Muslim, atheist, whatever -- and also a homeland for Jews. It's a contradiction that will never be resolved.

This is why the occupation is such a problem -- if Israel makes the Palestinians equal citizens, then Israel gives up its identity. But Israel rules over the Palestinians as second-class people, Israel gives up its ideals.

If I knew how to solve this problem, I'd be happy to tell you. But I don't know how.

Mark -- It is the same guy. I was wrong. I'm surprised -- I read a good bit of extremist political literature, on both the left and the right, and I have never seen the Commies criticize the "Jewish state" (as opposed to Zionism or Israel). Very ugly.

Michael,

may I suggest that you use Mark Poling's picture so that there is no mistake as to it being a Leftist rally. He aint no skinhead.

http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/120-2033_IMG.JPG

Oberon:

You just don't get it do you. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. All the language has "bled together" because all the movements have "bled together". Radical Muslims, the far left, the far right, crackpot Libertarians, greens, anti-globalists have all joined forces and started marching side by side, literally. It's all one movement now. They have internal disagreements on other issues, but they are united by their common hatred of Israel, of the Bush administration's foreign policy and of globalization.

Eric,
I find your argumentation to be totally over-the-top slimy. You start off by disclaiming "guilt by association". But then you go on to do that in a massive way.
Sure, "smash" is a pretty crude word. I suppose that it could be interpreted as "drop a nuke on". It could also be interpreted as "defeat, or oppose". Demonstrations are a bit like web conversations; subtly of language is not the vernacular. Would it be remarkable to read "smash the democrats", or "smash the liberal media", or even "smash the mullahs" - would that be necessarily interpreted as a call to genocide?

You take the most extreme interpretation possible, that this guy is advocating a new holocaust, and then turn around and insinuate that people like me would not find that to be antisemitic or even objectionable.

Why cant you be honest? You dont know what the guy actually meant. And, along with you, I am not particularly interested either. But for me that means I am not going to assume the worst and use him as a club to beat up on anyone who disagrees with me.

You just seem ever so eager to find some hook by which to castigate your political opponents as deeply immoral. And you are by no means the only, or the worst offender here. And that has nothing to do with serious discussion - it is just name-calling without the recourse to four-letter words.

"It's a state where Jews (be they secular or religious) command their own destiny, and are no longer at the whim and mercy of others. This is something conservatives are in complete agreement with, even if the Left is not."

Well sorry, but as an American, I take my stand with the notion that ALL the people in a given jurisdiction have an inherintly equal right to command the destiny of that place, and that no particular group within a society has a god-given priveledged position to expect their concerns to trump everyone elses.

Tano,

you don't do so as an "American." YOu do so as Tano, nothing more nor less.

Tano:

Did you read what you're responding to? I went on to say that "most likely" he was not endorsing the Iranian goal of "smashing" Israel with nuclear weapons, but instead, in conventional leftist tropes, was agitating against the "Jewish" identity of Israel, which would inevtiably lead to end of the Jews of Israel one way or another. That is I think the most benefit of the doubt anyone could extend to interpreting this sign.

I brought up Ron Rosenbaum's nuclear "Second Holocaust" idea, because I think, in these times in which most of Israel's neighbors want to "smash" Israel in the most basic, most violent sense possible, I think it's relevant. It would be one thing to carry such a sign in some imaginary world in which Israel didn't face such existential threats, but this is the real world context in which this sign was made and proudly carried. Words mean things.

However, again you're right. I don't necessarily endorse the maximalist interpretation of this twit holding this sign.

You, however, are going out of your way minimize, or excuse what the sign means. Juding from the history of this kind of rhetoric and language, I don't think that's a good idea.

Oberon,
Thanks for the (only?) penetratingly serious and honest response I've heard today.

As to the rest -
All I can say is that despite the rantings of Eric et. al. about grand conspiracies, blah blah blah, the truth is much as Markus mentioned earlier. The ONLY source of anti-israeli sentiment on the modern left is a direct reaction to the oppression and dispossesion of the palestinians. I recognize that all of you are so overjoyed to imagine that you have a free pass to the moral high ground, by whipping out the "antisemite" card at the drop of a hat, and using it in the most over-the-top manner, but you aint kidding anyone. Just like the use of the "racist" card is often just a ploy to avoid a serious discussion, that is what it is for all of you.

Eric D.--

I suggest we stop wasting time feeding Tano. He is incapable of understanding what is obvious to practically everyone in this thread. However, I do look forward to reading his expressions of nuanced understanding the day a man with a "Smash the Camel Jockeys" sign shows up at a Bush rally.

Tano, let's consider the two signs (the original and the one referenced by Sydney) together:

"Smash the Jewish State"

"The Options Still Remain: Socialism or Imperialist Barbarism"

(Too bad I can't get "Smash" and "Socialism" to display in red like the original.)

While not claiming to be a mindreader, I will say that the two together can be interpreted as supporting armed revolution. You know, that thing Chairman Mao and Pol Pot became famous for.

As long as the Left finds ways to make excuses for these people still fighting the last war (from the losing side, no less) the more marginalized it becomes. And I hate that, because I'm not a fan of the direction domestic conservatism is going.

Well sorry, but as an American, I take my stand with the notion that ALL the people in a given jurisdiction have an inherintly equal right to command the destiny of that place, and that no particular group within a society has a god-given priveledged position to expect their concerns to trump everyone elses.

Does that include concerns with not getting blown to smithereens simply for getting on a public bus or eating at a cafe? Because if one particular group only wants to eat at a cafe or get on a bus and another particular group wants to blow them to smithereens, well someone's concern is going to have to trump someone's, no? I know which groups concerns I find more sympathetic.

Tano,

Assigning comparable emotional values and implied intentions to "smash the democrats" and "smash the Jewish state" because you are not sure what the sign bearer means is at least dishonest.
Even to a non native English speaker like me the meaning is quite clear. But if you want to hide behind semantics, then your'e on the right track

I can see why anti-semitic nutjobs are tolerated at protests. Every single person in this thread who is not pro-war is either defending that guy, criticizing me for pointing my finger at him, or both.

I don't buy a single one of the criticism's against me. Sorry. I went way out of my way not to smear every person at the rally as a copy of that one person. But it's as though I didn't. Did you guys not read any of my text below the picture?

Once again, if I were at a protest and saw a guy like that I could call him out on it. If everyone did that, he would go home or change his sign.

The obtuseness of anti-war activists astonishes me. What would you say if guys who had white sheets over their heads were tolerated at pro-Bush rallies? Would you still spin for them or get mad at people who said "Look, the Klan keep showing up at the Bush rallies and the Bush people welcome them." No, you wouldn't. You know it and I know it. This post isn't about the war, damnit. It's about hate. Get a grip, please.

FA,
Once again, serious discussion seems illusive. I would respond to a "smash the camel jockeys" sign the same way I would respond to a "smash the greedy moneychangers" sign. It would be a direct call to an attack on a PEOPLE, in a racist stereotypical frame.

I would not react the same way to a "smash the islamic STATES" sign, as I have explained previously.

By the way, David, I don't know what rhetorical game you're playing by typing "Smash Muslim states" but I'm serious that I would get in your face if I found myself at a rally next to a guy with a sign like that. You know as well as I do there's an ignorant jackass "nuke 'em" contingency out there. I haven't seen hide or tail of them since shortly after 9/11, but I wouldn't put up with that crap for a second if it was standing next to me. I did get into it with a co-worker on 9/12 who said "Why don't we just nuke Afghanistan? It would get the world's attention, don't you think?"

But MArk,
There ya go again.
Socialism is not necessarily = Pol Potism. In fact, socialism was the founding philosophy of Israel, wanst it?

Why always try to insist that your opponents be neccessarily interpreted in the most extreme way?
Hell, there is a socialist member of congress - is he = pol pot?

Tano, I would posit that violent revolution (semingly espoused by our hatted, besigned friend) would in the case of Israel be a bad thing.

I mean, once the state of Israel is destroyed by the only people who seem remotely likely to destroy it, what happens to all those Jews? Be real.

Markus Rose writes:
"Antisemites of the Left hate the "Jews" for what they accuse them of doing, and this almost exclusively involves the actions of the state of Israel. Antisemites of the Right hate the Jews for who they are. "

I think that is an oversimplification (i.e. baloney). Basically what you are saying is that Left hatred is rational and Right hatred isn't. Extreme politics tend to be irrational and are driven by the psyche of individuals. People believe what they want to believe, and use specious arguements to dress up their bigotry to make it palatable.

Given the deep history of anti-semitism that is embedded in the Quran and to a much lesser extent in the Bible clearly the origins of anti-semitism is deeply entrenched in the psyche of Western and Muslim cultures and is found in nations independent of ideology.

If the Left's treatment of Jews is rational, please explain Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union's terrible treatment of Jewish citizens which certainly pre-dates the existence of Israel.

antistate does not equal antipeople

Could you explain what this is supposed to mean? I had a discussion with an Islamist once, a fan of the man who inspired bin Laden, Sayyed Qutb. This Islamist said that their goal was not to attack other people, only their governments.

The fact that many thousands of innocent human beings are deliberately targeted in terrorist attacks against the ‘states’ is irrelevant to the followers of this philosophy.

Oh, and the Smash the Jewish State sign is currently being vigorously defended by other very left-leaning participants in the march.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1683383_comment.php#1684058

Since we’re discussing freedom of speech, here’s an interesting fact about that thread on Indymedia – I published a comment there yesterday, explaining that Palestinian Muslims have been persecuting Palestinian Christians for years, and that the planned Palestinian constitution would create an Islamic (religious) state.

An Arab Christian responded with this comment:

"Meddling and causing problems
by Joseph
Tuesday, Jun. 08, 2004 at 10:19 AM

Can I tell you Indymedia people something? I'm an arab christian and you're listening to a very narrow set of opinions. In fact you are promoting them even though you don't know what you're talking about. You're just angry and you're helping the people who are trying to kill us. The muslims were chasing us out for years. Stop this - you don't understand anything."

My comment and Joseph’s comment about Arab persecution of Christians are now gone. And neither of us used any bad language.

According to their mission statement, Indymedia is supposed to be a free speech kind of place.

I should have saved a screenshot. That’s not the first time this has happened.

Oh, and here’s a link to more peace protesters threatening to stifle dissent by pricking pro-Bush protesters with an HIV infected needle.

Markus, Tano, Oberon - whatever happened to peace love and understanding?

Tano writes:

The ONLY source of anti-israeli sentiment on the modern left is a direct reaction to the oppression and dispossesion of the palestinians.

That's certainly the main source, but so what?

Does that mean they (the modern pro-Palestinian "left") are incapable of being anti-Semitic or crossing some line that prevents irrational hatred?

Many Palestinians themselves (certainly not all, hopefully not a majority) hold blatantly anti-Semitic views (taught by official PA literature, text books and government sanctioned imams) and they, along with some of their supporters in the U.S., blame their plight on the "Zionist controlled media" and the "Zionist Occuppied Government."

One routinely sees "Congress is Occuppied Territory" signs at "anti-War" rallies.

I don't see how being pro-Palestinian automatically shields one from being anti-Semitic - (maybe you weren't saying that, and I apologize if you were). That they are increasingly sentiments shared equally by certain people is not surprising, as many pro-Palestinian elements seem to be either getting more desparate, more emboldened, or a combination of the two.

It's such a bizarre rhetorical shell game to constantly de-construct the meaning of the phrase "Smash the Jewish state", while feigning (?) total ingornace of the actual political/historical context of the moment in which the phrase is written. I suppose in the abstract, someone from say, Mars, might find Tano's rationalizations compelling, until they started reading Earth history, if that makes any sense.

Micheal,
You seem intent on equating opposition to a state with a will to destroy a people. That is why you seem to insist that we interpret the sign as "hate". My point has been that it aint necessarily so.
There is a difference between saying smash the isalmic states, and nuke afghanistan. You dont necessarily use a nuke to destroy a state. We all were glad to see the Soviets "smashed", and no one, (dare I say you included?) would have had any problem with anyone wishing for the Soviet empire to be smashed. Would you have assumed that someone who said that were actually advocating the mass murder of Russian people?

Tano, the word is "Smash". Not reform. Not change. I could argue constructively with "Stop Zionist Oppression of Palestine" even. But "Smash" makes me think of the victorious proletariat standing on rubble.

Does the Socialist member of Congess spend a lot of time talking about "Imperialist Barbarism"? Don't know. That phrase sure sounds "Little Red Book" to me, but what do I know? (But I could swear Communists thought of themselves as the real Socialists.)

I don't read minds, but I do read. And I don't think I'm misreading the iconography here. Why you're avoiding it (at best) is beyond me.

You're right Michael - it is about hate. I'm glad Mark came up with that picture, but as we see it won't shake some people from their dellusions. That SF guy is a serious Jew-hater and America-hater. I could easily find more pictures of him from the Feb 2003 "peace" rally but why should I waste my time. I'm sure my brain is "photoshopped".

I will say from taliking to him that it would probably take a violent confrontation involving at least a dozen people to dislodge that creep from the "peace" group.

Tano, you're arguing yourself into a corner. Just stop.

Damien Penny linked to this post and added the following quote from a book called "Why the Jews":

Can someone deny that Italians are a nation, work to destroy Italy, and all the while claim that he is not an enemy of the Italian people because he does not hate all Italians? The question is obviously absurd. If you deny Italian nationhood and any Italian rights to their homeland, and seek to destroy Italy, no matter how sincerely you may claim to love some Italians, you are an enemy of the Italian people. The same holds true for those who deny Jewish nationhood and the Jews' right to their state, and who advocate the destruction of Israel. Such people are enemies of the Jewish people, and the term for their attitudes, even when espoused by people who sincerely like some Jews, is antisemitism.

Tano:

Your "arguments" are pure sophistry. Again, hilarious if they weren't so dangerous. First of all, you've done everything you can to avoid the fact that the word "smash" has a primary meaning that is rather, how you say, violent, and found some bizarre form of sophistry which allows you to assert that smash=oppose.

That aside, I and some others have repeatedly given you some hint of the "facts on the ground" to which this poster refers, and you have not susbstantitively engaged a single one of those facts, but simply continued to play word games.

I don't care what Tano's response is, and I know this is no use, I just hope that some lurker can see this conversation and see how far some on the left are willing to go to defend anti-Semitism.

Oberon:

You just don't get it do you. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. All the language has "bled together" because all the movements have "bled together". Radical Muslims, the far left, the far right, crackpot Libertarians, greens, anti-globalists have all joined forces and started marching side by side, literally. It's all one movement now. They have internal disagreements on other issues, but they are united by their common hatred of Israel, of the Bush administration's foreign policy and of globalization.

Crikey, I can't believe I ended up in this argument. I just wanted to verify this particular photo.

Except for the first two sentences, I agree with everything you just wrote. (Also, I might quibble with your putting the crackpot Libertarians in there. My neighbor is a crackpot Libertarian, and he's a pretty strong supporter of Israel.)

The language does make some difference. For one, it's how you recognize which crackpot you're dealing with. ;) More importantly, it's how you track dangerous beliefs moving between "crackpot" territory and more mainstream discourse.

First off, can we give this bizarre over-interpretation of "the left" a break? When I use the term, I am referring to the modern american left. Not to Stalin, or Trotsky or Pol Pot. Just like when I use "the right", I am not referring to Hitler or Franco or Moussolini.

I do not claim that the left is somehow immune to antisemitism. As humans, leftists are prone to all the many psychological disorders that any other group is. But since we are in the mood to do political-analysis-by-anectdote, let me offer my little life story. I have NEVER in decades of talking to leftist heard a single "kike" or anyother overtly antisemitic comment. Granted, I filter my aquaintences, so this is not a random sample. But there ya go. I have heard dozens of racist comments from "the right", although those seem to have declined drastically in the past decade or so.

So all this talk of antisemitism is way over the top as far as I am concerned. It is irrefutably true that the modern american right, in its fervent advocacy of not only Israel's interest, but specifically the program of the Likud party, has used the term "antisemite" to as great an extent as many blacks used the "racist" charge - as an effort to shut down debate.

It has reached the point where if you take a random glance at a political position printed in an Israeli newspaper, that position woudl be deemed "antisemitic" if uttered here in america byu an american. There is far more vibrancy and debate within Israel over its own identity and policy than there is here in the land of the free.

THe "right" loves to complain about the censorial tendencies of political correctness, but they themsleves practice it to the max on this issue.

>>>"By the way, David, I don't know what rhetorical game you're playing by typing "Smash Muslim states" but I'm serious that I would get in your face if I found myself at a rally next to a guy with a sign like that."

Good Michael, at least you're consistent, something I rarely see from the Left. That was my only point.

Oberon:

I agree with everything you say. Good points all.

By "crackpot Libertarians" I meant those of the anti-war.com/LewRockwell variety. For an interesting look at dangerous beliefs moving from crackpot territory to the mainstream, check out the supposedly more mainstream libertarians at Reason moving closer and closer to this territory.

All:

Since a lot of us are recommending reading material on the "new" anti-Semitism, I'll recommend the new Ron Rosenbaum edited essay collection Those who Forget the Past: the question of anti-Semitsm, just the introduction and the afterword alone give you a good idea of the current state of things.

Tano: It has reached the point where if you take a random glance at a political position printed in an Israeli newspaper, that position woudl be deemed "antisemitic" if uttered here in america byu an american.

Not by me. I read Ha'aretz, Israel's left-wing English daily. It's pretty good. I have yet to see an editorial titled "Smash the Jewish State."

Going with your quote, Michael, if I were opposed to some of the policies of the Italian government, would I be anti-Italian?

Or would I have been anti-Italian in 1938 if I wanted the abolition of the government of Mussolini?

Or if I were opposed to the policies of the administration of George W. Bush, am I then anti-American? (I actually hear that a lot)

Tano writes:

It has reached the point where if you take a random glance at a political position printed in an Israeli newspaper, that position woudl be deemed "antisemitic" if uttered here in america byu an american. There is far more vibrancy and debate within Israel over its own identity and policy than there is here in the land of the free.

Sorry Tano. 99% of Israelis would consider a sign at an "anti-war/(pro-Palestinian)" protest that had "Smash the Jewish State" written on it to be anti-Semitic, (and anti-Zionist, and anti-Israel and probably anti-democracy, anti-freedom, anti-self-determination, etc...)

douple plus,

smash the Israeli state

smash the Jewish state

What's the difference here?

The ONLY source of anti-israeli sentiment on the modern left is a direct reaction to the oppression and dispossesion of the palestinians.

This is pure bunk. That's like saying that afirmative action is the ONLY source of racism against blacks. For that matter you might as well take the Bizaro-world Way-Back machine with Sherman and Mr. Peabody (with the evil-but-more-interesting Mr. Spock beard) to when the Klan was burning crosses to bring attention to the plight of Ugandans under Idi Amin.

As I indicated, I know of no Israeli cemetaries or synagogues that have been vandalized outside of the 1967 boarders. Only Jewish ones.

...Unless, as I forwarded earlier, Anti-Zionism has been globalized.

I'll believe that "anti-Israeli" acts of "concsiousness raising" are due to the plight of the Palestinians when I see the Free Tibetters torching Chineese takeout joints.

It has reached the point where if you take a random glance at a political position printed in an Israeli newspaper, that position woudl be deemed "antisemitic" if uttered here in america byu an american. There is far more vibrancy and debate within Israel over its own identity and policy than there is here in the land of the free.

THe "right" loves to complain about the censorial tendencies of political correctness, but they themsleves practice it to the max on this issue.

Tano has done his homework. He's up on the latest "meme", the new hotness. You see, anti-Semites of the left have now co-opted the term "political correctness" to refer to any attempts by anyone to point out anti-Semitism. It's a clever, nasty little propaganda trick, the corruption of respectable terminology to be used as a tool to defend anti-Semitism. It's a favorite trick of the Counterpunch set these days. Look out for it.

david smash the Israeli state

smash the Jewish state

What's the difference here?

In my view, none, both are equally objectionable. And you're asking me this because ...?

Eric Deamer writes:

It's a favorite trick of the Counterpunch set these days. Look out for it.

Very true. They wrote an entire book about it.

Michael,
Its your blog, so I will stop.
But as a parting shot, I must disagree strongly with your quoted comment.

Sorry to have to point this out, but the Italian state was constructed by the people who lived there. It was not dreamed up by people who lived thousands of miles away, and who then migrated there en masse to set up a state that is defined in opposition to the natives. And yes I know that there has always been a vibrant jewish community living in the middle east, but that makes up a very small part of the present day population.
The arabs there had and have every bit as much right to THEIR own state, on THEIR own land, which just so happens to be the same land. If the Zionists had decided to go to the middle east and to build an American style democracy, fully respective of all the rights of all the people who lived there at the time, I certainly would have no objection. As it is, the Palestinians were treated much like the native americans here. I dont blame them for resisting that. Everyone here probably would have done the same, in such a position.

I will continue to hold onto what I believe are basic American principals. I dont know the roadmap to get there necessarily, but I think all the people there have a right to live where they want to (jews in Hebron, pals in Tel aviv) in peace. And to some extent the nature of the Israeli state is an obstacle to that. And specifically the policies of the Likud have been a blatant obstacle to that. And the policies of the palestinians have also been severly problematical as well. But that last sentiment is not something that anyone doubts. The other points do need making.

dpu:

More sophistry. The sign in question talked about "smash" ing a state and referred explicitly to religion/ethnicity, yet you're trying to obfuscate matters by talking about opposition to specific governments or presidential administrations. Why?

And, all these people who are calling you "anti-American" because you don't support Bush. I hear people say that that happens a lot, but I hardly ever see a specific example. When did this happen? Where? Details please.

Eric, FYI, the left came up with the term "politically correct" in the seventies as an ironic denounciation of an in-house phenomena. The right borrowed it in the eighties.

And "being P.C." doesn't recognize political affiliations, it's more a quality of a certain type of personality that bedevils all shades of the political spectrum.

double plus:

If you were opposed to some policies of the Italian government you would not be anti-Italian.

If you said "Smash the Italian State" (or wrote that on a sign and paraded around) then yes, you would be anti-Italian.

Why reduce "Smash the [fill in the blank] State" to merely being "opposed to some of the policies" of that particular government?

That seems a stretch.

For what it's worth, I read through IndyBay at

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1683383_comment.php#1684058

and I'm definitely satisfied the sign was real. Here it is again:

http://img37.photobucket.com/albums/v113/protestwarriorssf/june05/Picture_024.jpg

And I'm not an anti-war leftist, but this writer has the right idea:

I am an anti-war leftist fed up with the anti-semitism in the anti-war movement. I had the sign "pro-israel, pro-palestine, pro-peace." I marched with SF Voice for Israel (NOT with Protest Warriors, who I deplore).

I was there until 3pm. Nobody on our side started shit. There were people from the pro-palestinian side shoving us, coming into our space and shouting "I hope they push you fucking assholes into the sea!"

Smash The Jewish State IS RACIST.

I am AGAINST the occupation. But there WERE anti-semetic signs at the protest and that's why SF Voice For Israel exists. MANY people on the SF Voice for Israel side were fellow leftists who feel alienated by the anti-war movement because nobody speaks out against the anti-semitism within.

Tano:

Actually half of the population of Israel is composed of Jews who are refugees from other countries in the Middle East that wouldn't have them. So, in your only attempt to engage any facts you get a major one wrong.

SoCalJustice:

You're right. They have an entire book on how to calumniate Israel while finding a way to wriggle out of the charge of being anti-Semitic. Shouldn't that tell you something right there? I mean, if your political beliefs need an entire book to be defended from the charge of anti-Semitism, wouldn't it occur to you that they might in fact be a tad anti-Semitic.

You see, anti-Semites of the left have now co-opted the term "political correctness" to refer to any attempts by anyone to point out anti-Semitism.

Well to be sure, not every criticism of Israel is anti-semetic. The trouble arrives with the double standards against Israel (not helped by its unique circumstances that has been permitted by internalized anti-sem... well YOU do the math) and then transfering Israel's actions on to Jews anywhere. It's not unreasonable to say that the only other level of pathological hate in the intellecutaloid community rivaling Globalized Anti-“Zionism”™ is Anti-Americanism and that's harder to package and practice as racist bigotry as Americans are from... well... everywhere, so you can't slam a Brit or Irishman for being a yankee. But a French Jew is nothing other than an Israeli expat regardless of his address, passport history or personal conscience in the eyes of the militantly socially aware.

As far as being politically correct goes... We should also recall that the phrase "Anti-Semitism" was coined not to confront Jew-Hatred, but to empower it by givng it an intellectual edge. Heck, it may be seen as the prototype for modern PC. And now, it's hiding under Anti-"Zionism's" coattails.

The trouble arrives with the double standards against Israel (not helped by its unique circumstances that has been permitted by internalized anti-sem... well YOU do the math) and then transfering Israel's actions on to Jews anywhere.

My bust, sorry. I should also add that negating Israel's right to exist is also anti-semetic -- unless you don't believe in the sovereign right of any people, the Irish, Tibettans, Palestinians, Kurds, Basques, Native Americans, East Timors, Chechens, etc. etc and so on and so forth.

Eric More sophistry. The sign in question talked about "smash" ing a state and referred explicitly to religion/ethnicity, yet you're trying to obfuscate matters by talking about opposition to specific governments or presidential administrations. Why?

Huh? What did my questions to Michael have to do with the "smashing" the state? I was seeing how far the analogy posted my Micheal stretched. Relax, no endorsment of state smashing, religious or no, was intended.

Eric And, all these people who are calling you "anti-American" because you don't support Bush. I hear people say that that happens a lot, but I hardly ever see a specific example. When did this happen? Where? Details please.

Nevermind Bush, I've been called anti-American because I thought Canada's healthcare system was superior to that of the US. It doesn't take much sometimes.

But here's one thread where a poster called me anti-semetic, anti-American, and repulsive.

Bill,

But no one's even really claiming that every criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, are they? Most criticisms aren't.

As Tano wittingly illustrated, the Counterpunch meme is that "Jews," "Zionists" and "Likudniks" always claim that "criticism" (not qualified by words like "some" or "much" or even "all") of Israel is anti-Semitic in an effort to stifle debate.

Thus, everytime anyone brings up the word "anti-Semitism" - it is to be discounted, because it doesn't really exist, especially in the context of criticizing Israel.

Therefore, now someone can read "Smash the Jewish State" as (per double plus' rationale) a mere statement of "oppostion to government policies" and nothing more.

Tano,

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Within the lifetime of many who are still with us, Europe slaughtered half of its Jewish population. The survivors built a nation in the desert so they could be safe, and you want to take that away from them and their descendants.

Matthew,

laugh, becauce Tano fancies himself the high-minded one amongst us.

From Tano:

I have NEVER in decades of talking to leftist heard a single "kike" or anyother overtly antisemitic comment.

OK since that shot came from me... The verb I used, "Kiking," is the ugly word for associating people with being a jew to discredit them. By NO means does it have to be "overt" and from what others have told me who have been through similar experiences, it rarely is. The lit student was not called the K-word after calling Arafat a liar and terrorist. Rather her fellow European student said, "Stop pretending you're a European. You're a Jew. I don't care you're form or what you look like" (I'll never forget that last sentence). And rather than getting hoots and howls of disgust from the bulk of the group present, the dissent only came form the "other" people such as myself who were in stark minority -- not even 5 in a room full of about twenty. I myself had someone ask quitely but smugly as I was getting my coat "Capehart, an interesting name where does it comes from." I replied "WASP." He then said skeptically and smugly "sure it is." You don't have to call someone a hook-nose to be an Anti-Semite. Just a politically correct bigorty requires "nuance." And this was a roomfull of VERY politically correct people who I hope never to encounter again.

The naiveté of apologists for PC anti-Semitism just boggles my mind sometimes. How people could see that exchage as anything but Anti-Semitism, or that plackard by the protester for that matter, is beyond me. I there was nothing in that parade that said "Free Tibet, Clobber Beijing" in the crowd.

the Italian state was constructed by the people who lived there

Tell that to the Etruscans.

You object to Israel because some of the people who live there weren’t born there. And oh, heaven forbid, conflict and the restructuring of borders was part of its founding.

Can you name a single nation that was formed without the use of these tactics?

>>>"Can you name a single nation that was formed without the use of these tactics?"

If holding Israel to standards no other country is held to isn't anti-semitism, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

Padron the sloppy typos in that one... The magnitude of denial I'm seeing here is setting me off. And on that note I'm taking a break from lunch. If some people want to pretend that there is only Anti-"Zionism" in the intellectual/anti-war/anti-whatever communities while, for example, advocates of meritocracy are often smeared as "internalized" racists by these same people, that is their malfunction -- not mine.

Here's what martin luther King said about so-called anti-zionism:

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? 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 antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

That fact that conservatives today are more in agreement with MLK than are Leftists just goes to show how bankrupt the Left has become.

Uh oh, David!! Kings's quote at Harvard really was forcefully delivered as...

'Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”

Short and Sweet with little chance of typos as he got excited :-). The extended quote is not believed to be accurate and is sometimes used to discredit those who honestly but accidently quote in order to push his short-concise quote off the table of conversation entirely. You might wanna file that one somewhere for future reference.

OK lunchies are over.

Tano: Its your blog, so I will stop.

It wasn't an order, just a suggestion.

Sorry to have to point this out, but the Italian state was constructed by the people who lived there. It was not dreamed up by people who lived thousands of miles away

You could say the same about America. It, too, was created by people who moved here from Europe. At this point, so what? I was born here, and this is my country. An Israeli who was born there is entitled to live in that country without it being smashed. Besides, many of Israel's first Jews lived there already and did not arrive off the boat from Europe or anywhere else. Not all Jews left the Middle East.

The arabs there had and have every bit as much right to THEIR own state, on THEIR own land, which just so happens to be the same land.

That is why I support a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israelis have no right to permanently annex the West Bank unless they make the Palestinians full citizens with equal rights. And the Palestinians have no right to take Tel Aviv.

You could say the same about America. It, too, was created by people who moved here from Europe.

Well, my knowledge about American history is probably not what yours is, but weren't most of the founding fathers American-born, and had families living there for several generations?

Well, my knowledge about American history is probably not what yours is, but weren't most of the founding fathers American-born, and had families living there for several generations?

Yes, but every single one was a descendent of colonists. The percentage of Jews in Israel whose families were there "forever" is higher than that of the people in America whose families were here "forever." Don't forget, also, that there are almost a million Arab Muslims in Israel who are full citizens, who vote, and who are elected to political office. Only those who live across the Green Line are stuck in citizenship limbo. (And again, I think they should get their own state for reasons that are, at least for most people, obvious.)

Note - Was just inquiring about the birthplaces of the founding fathers, not challenging Israel's right to existence. I've gotta stop get sidetracked by interesting historical points.

There were people from the pro-palestinian side shoving us, coming into our space and shouting "I hope they push you fucking assholes into the sea!"

Ah yes, another "peaceful" sentiment expressed by someone at an "anti-war" (or as the media sometimes tells us, "peace") rally, organized by the "peaceniks" at International ANSWER.

I guess they just didn't know that they were supposed to be "Act(ing) Now to Stop War and End Racism."

Maybe if they had just read the pamphlets, they wouldn't have been "Act(ing) Now to Advocate War Based on Racism."

Or perhaps the name of the organization is just a tad misleading ... ?

David, as Bill points out, the MLK letter you quoted looks like a hoax. See this, which I found through Wikipedia. The actual Harvard quote is a bit more pithy.

Re: my post at 12:10pm

I didn't mean to imply that the bulk of "anti-war" protestors aren't indeed legimitately anti-war.

I believe they are.

I just don't believe the main organizers behind most of the large "anti-war" rallies are - and I believe that fosters, and invites and seeks to include, certain radical elements.

And obviously all of those radical elements don't agree on the benefits of the "big tent" theory.

So Michael,
Why does a palestinian, who may have been born in Tel Aviv, and whose parents and grandparents etc. going back to the mists of history were born there, not have a right to return and make his life in HIS country. Whereas the jewish people whose ancestors were there two thousand years ago have an absolute right to do the same?

Look, lets be frank here. The ultimate justification for an ethnic/religous israeli state comes down to either an assertion that it is "god's will" - which I find to be dangerous hogwash. Or it is based on pure power - it is justified because they were strong enough to make it happen. Neither wins much sympathy from me.

If you want to argue rights, how can you argue that people whose ancestors were there two thousand years ago have a greater right than people whose ancestors were there 50 years ago? Or who were born there themselves? By your own criterion - lets not kick out the israelis who were born there, but lets acknowledge that the palestinians have the same right to return to their homes.
Why wouldnt a palestinian, two thousand years from now, have as strong a claim to jerusalem as any jew did in 1947?

Tano,

Arab Muslims do live in Tel Aviv. They are full citizens.

Palestinians in Gaza should not move to Tel Aviv at this time for the same reason Israelis should not build settlements in Gaza.

Also, Tano, there were Jews there too in 1947, and in 1937, 1927, 1917, 1907, and so on backwards and preceding the birth of Islam.

It's tragic the two peoples can't live in a single democratic state, but there isn't much to be done about that now.

Tano: The ultimate justification for an ethnic/religous israeli state comes down to either an assertion that it is "god's will" - which I find to be dangerous hogwash. Or it is based on pure power - it is justified because they were strong enough to make it happen. Neither wins much sympathy from me.

I don't sympathize with either of those, either.

I do, however, sympathize with the need of the Jews to live in a secure country in a hostile region. A Palestinian-majority country is not a safe place for Jews at this time.

1. "antistate does not equal antipeople"
2. Could you explain what this is supposed to mean?

Mary, it's meaningless gibberish, intended to confuse, triangulate, and avoid being held accountable for "attacks on the state". As you pointed out, "the state" is an abstraction, it ultimately comes down to an attack on its citizens. It's like the old line from "The Godfather". Don't take this personally, it's just business. Kaboom.

I work with lots of third-worlders who give me the "we like American but don't like American policies". I try to tell them that American policies are driven by democratic elections, so in point of fact they do have trouble with Americans. The cognitive dissonance is interesting to watch. People really like me, don't see me as ignorant or jingoistic, but can't understand how I could possibly support the war. It's humorous to see them struggle with this.

Tano writes: Look, lets be frank here. The ultimate justification for an ethnic/religous israeli state comes down to either an assertion that it is "god's will" - which I find to be dangerous hogwash. Or it is based on pure power - it is justified because they were strong enough to make it happen.

By "frank" do you mean "incorrect"?

The justification is that the Jews, like all other peoples, have a right to their homeland. What was to be "Israel" under the 1947 U.N. partition plan did not include all of the areas where Jews were living in British Mandatory Palestine. So the Jews living outside those boundaries would not be living in Israel - although they could move there. And vice versa for Palestinain Arabs.

The Arabs that live inside the Green Line are, in fact, Israelis.

With all of the talk from Palestinians (and much of the world) demanding that the Israelis dismantle settlements in the West Bank and Gaza - it's pretty clear that there is no desire on the part of the Arabs to have 200,000 Jews (let alone 1 million, or any, for that matter) living in what will become Palestine.

That's the frank justification.

And now that you're back, I thought you'd like to see this example of "Modern Leftist" anti-Semitism" from Richard Ingrams, a writer for the British left-wing paper, The Guardian:

Amiel's Animus

I have developed a habit when confronted by letters to the editor in support of the Israeli government to look at the signature to see if the writer has a Jewish name. If so, I tend not to read it.

Too few people in this modern world are prepared to declare an interest when it comes to this kind of thing. It would be enormously helpful, for example, if those clerics and journalists who have been defending Canon Jeffrey John, the so-called gay bishop, were to tell us whether they themselves are gay. Some do, but more don't.

The issue arises partly because, in both cases, these people are often accusing the other side of being prejudiced and biased - we are either homophobes or anti-Semites.

The other day, for example, the Canadian journalist Barbara Amiel wrote a long denunciation of the BBC in the Daily Telegraph, accusing the Corporation of being anti-Israel in its Middle East coverage.

Many readers of the Daily Telegraph may have been impressed by her arguments, assuming her to be just another journalist or even, as she was recently described in another newspaper, an 'international-affairs commentator'.

They might have been less impressed if the paper had told them that Barbara Amiel is not only Jewish but that her husband's company, in which she has an interest, owns not only the Daily Telegraph but the Jerusalem Post .

In other words, when it comes to accusing people of bias on the Middle East, she is not ideally qualified for the role.

Or, in other words, a person's ethnicity or religion (read: Jewish) discredits certain ideas, that if expressed by a non-Jew, would be - excuse the term - totally kosher.

To his "left-wing" credit, he didn't use the word "Kike" while dismissing any potential credibility that a Jewish person (or rather, someone with a Jewish name) has while writing about Israel.

Comforting, huh?

Tano,

Do you think that Israel, as a majority-Jewish nation, should continue to exist?

Michael,
I fully realize that there are many israeli arabs with full rights. But many of the people in gaza are refugees, their roots are not in gaza per se.

And of course there was a jewish community there all along. But there were arabs there all along as well. I dont see the jews having precedence merely because the arabs converted to islam 1300 years ago. Their ancestors were there at the time of the jewish kingdoms as well.

It sure is easy for us to say - "there isnt much to be done about it today". We are not the ones dispossessed and living in refugee towns. I agree with you that it would be great if everyone there could live in peace and democracy. Maybe it will evolve to that, the way the germans and french now live together.

But lets make no mistake about something. If the palestinians had not resisted - even in as ugly a manner as they have - then the Likud would have established even more settlements than they did - would have created even more facts on the ground, and would certainly never have granted citizenship to a potential majority. They would have built a "greater israel", and probably gone on to expel the palestinians to jordan, as some in israel still advocate.

I cant understand why there seems to be such a reluctance of people in america (mainly the right)to acknowledge these facts, and to make clear that we, as americans, cannot support that.

The PLO accepted, at least in principal, the existence of israel in 1988. How many settlements have been built since then? You claim the israelis shouldnt build settlements in gaza, but what about the West Bank? What is to stop them? Other than maybe American pressure, or violent resistance?

David -- accusing critics of Israel who do not extend similar criticism to other nations with similar problems seems as illogical as the argument that we have no moral justification in overthrowing Saadam when we are unwilling to overthrow every other tyrant on the planet. Both arguments advance the illogical implication that it is better not to fight against any injustice unless one is willing to fight against all injustices. I think that Israeli policy is a proper subject for criticism by Americans, particularly since our (democratic) government plays such a vital role in Israel's security, and as a result we have quite a bit of power to influence or at least respond to the actions of Israel's (democratic) government.

Tano:

You keep writing stuff like "Let's be frank here..." and "But lets make no mistake about something..."

Followed up by something that's not necessarily true at all.

First of all, if the Palestinians hadn't "resisted," as you write (assuming you mean this most recent Intifada) then Likud would never have been elected in the first place.

You should "make no mistake about that."

Tano writes:

What is to stop them? Other than maybe American pressure, or violent resistance?

Non-violent resistence. The Palestinians biggest mistake (and it's often said that Arafat never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity) was resorting to violence and terrorism in the first place.

If they had followed a mostly non-violent path like the American civil rights movement, the liberal Israeli majority would have agreed to a separate state. The first intifada was sort-of non-violent -- intentionally focused to kids throwing rocks in front of CNN cameras, while guns and bombs were mostly kept under wraps -- and in a few years it lead to Oslo.

The second intifada destroyed the Israeli peace movement.

I'm showing my liberal leanings here, but the truth is that in SOME situations, a non-violent resistance is far more effective that violence.

Oberon,
I have always had a preference, based on my american principles, and also colored perhaps by fantasy, that a single state, from river to sea, with an american-style democracy would be the ideal. And I have always felt that the jews of israel would be the ideal group to lead in that direction since they clearly have a profound appreciation of every other aspect of democracy.

But I recognize that for the near term that is pretty much a fantasy. So for now, I would certainly advocate any arrangement that is mutually agreeable to the two sides - the two-state solution, with the hope maybe that it would evolve in the EU direction (peace, free trade, ultimate irrelevancy of borders etc.). I cannot support the expansion by force into the WB that has been going on for the past few decades - I think that is a fundamental cause of the unrest. The Palestinians have at least done their part in recognizing Israel. The great tradgedy is that those palestinians are being marginalized and the hard-line noncompromisers are thereby gaining the upper hand. It is in our interst not to let that happen, and that means nailing down a two state solution asap.

No, Tano, I don't support settlements in the West Bank. Neither do most Israelis, by the way.

My view in a nutshell.

Israel deserves its own secure state and does not need to accept Palestinians into it.

Palestinians deserve their own state and do not need to accept Israeli settlements inside it.

Palestinians have the right to non-violent resistance agaisnt Israeli occupation.

Israelis has a right to fight terrorism by any means short of war crimes.

If the Palestinians would switch to non-violent resistance, they would get their own state pronto because Likud would be kicked out of power and Labor would cut them a deal. But Hamas and Islamic Jihad are waging a war to destroy Israel, Arafat is their accomplice, and there can be no peace as long as this continues.

Socal,
The Likud was first elected in the seventies. That was when they moved their "greater israel" agenda in a big way.

Oberon,
I basically agree with you. My god wouldn't it have been wonderful if the Palestinians could have produced a Gandhi, or an MLK. But that is a pretty high standard, and it seems a bit unreasonable, in the grand scheme of things, to claim that the Pals have no legitimate beef unless it is advanced by a saint.

It's like the old line from "The Godfather". Don't take this personally, it's just business. Kaboom

LOL. That does sum it up.

Tano writes: The Likud was first elected in the seventies. That was when they moved their "greater israel" agenda in a big way.

And in the 70's, the stated goal of the PLO and the Arab League was to wipe Israel off the map, stemming from the famous '67 Arab League Khartoum dictat of "No peace, No recognition, No Negotiation."

Perhaps you should consider excusing the Israelis for resisting that concept.

I apologize for misconstruing your post - I did qualify it with: assuming you mean this most recent Intifada...

Oberion: "Do you think that Israel, as a majority-Jewish nation, should continue to exist?"

Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, I would have been one of the many Jews who were unsympathetic to Zionism, and who agreed more with with Israel Jacobson, the founder of reform Judaism, who held that the proper homeland for Jews was in the United States, not Israel.

Given that Israel does exist, and its Arabs neighbors have given no indication that they are willing to share power with their Jewish neighbors in a bi-national state, I support Israel's right to exist, and to defend it's citizens against attack. I also think that, while defending their recently conquered turf, Israelis have a moral obligation not to ignore the dispossession of the indigenous Arab population without which the Jewish state would no longer exist, and to understand the rage of the descendents of that dispossession, even if the necessity of self-preservation prevents Israelis from acquiesing to the wish of many of those descendents that Israel cease to exist as a Jewish state.

MJT If the Palestinians would switch to non-violent resistance, they would get their own state pronto because Likud would be kicked out of power and Labor would cut them a deal.

You don't think that any Palestinians are using non-violent resistance? Like what, for example? Standing in front of bulldozers demolishing homes? Being observers of IDF actions? Demonstrating?

With all due respect to you, Michael, I would say that there are many who are using non-violent means. And you may be right, those tactics do seem to be the biggest threat to the fanatics on both sides. So let's honour them, and not forget that the violent actions of a few should not obliterate the non-violent actions of many.

Michael,
What makes you think that non-violent resistance would be effective (BTW, I very much want to believe you here)? The expansion into the WB is not pitched, within Israel, as a land-grab, or as punishment of the Palestinians for their violence. It is pitched as a reclamation of land given by God. How much more of a powerful argument can there be? Without the threat of real-world consequences, how exactly will such an argument be opposed? Even if a majority in israel is opposed, the passion of a minority can outweigh that. This is normal for any issue in a democracy - its isnt the raw numbers on either side that counts, its the number times the passion. Even if the average israeli is squeamish about it, if the expulsion of the palestinians can be "gotten away with", then I dont see it being stopped. Thats how we've gotten to 400K settlers in the first place.

Correction of my 1:21 PM post.

The concept of wiping Israel of the map obviously didn't "stem from" the Khartoum dictat. It pre-existed it by 20 years.

The Khartoum dictat was just an additional example of Arab intransigence that left the Israelis with few choices - or as pro-Palestinian supporters like to claim, the beginning of "Greater Israel."

It's as if the PLO never existed and no one ever uttered the phrase "no negotiation, no recognition, no peace."

C'est la vie.

MJT,
There are about 1.4 million Arabs in Israel. While life is not perfect they vote and have about 4 or 5 MP in the parliament, they can live anywhere in Israel, they can attend any university and they can work anywhere subject to security. Their standard of living and personal liberties are better than of Arabs in any Arab country.

Tano,
First a short lecture:
Very few Arabs were born in Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv was founded and built by Jews in the 1920. The "TA Arabs" lived and still live mostly in Jaffo.

There were no Arabs in Israel before biblical times. Whatever population was there before has accepted Judaism and stayed Jewish until it has converted (partially) to Christianity and later on was forcibly converted to Islam. The remaining Christians were oppressed by islamic rulers. A small Jewish minority lived in today's Palestine/Israel thru all those times.

Israel was built on zionism idea: a sovereign country for Jewish people, and not a god's will.
Basically a direct result of antisemitism of almost 2000 years. The zionism was fully justified by the WW2 holocaust.

The first zionists did advocate sharing the place that was under british mandate with Palestinians.
However, the Palestinians rejected the idea consistently. Today, after all the wars, Arab terror, current rabid Arab antisemitism there is no chance of sharing.

Hence the fence, etc.

If you plan ever to discuss Zionism/Israel topic you should read the "A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time" by Howard M. Sachar ISBN 0-679-76563-8

Frankly speaking your emotions and opinions are inversely proportional to your knowledge on this subject.

Tano writes: The expansion into the WB is not pitched, within Israel, as a land-grab, or as punishment of the Palestinians for their violence. It is pitched as a reclamation of land given by God.

There's no other word for that blanket explanation than tripe. (Ok, there are a few other words but they're equally flattering).

It's "pitched" as a defensive maneuver to be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations with a less than honest and altruistic "peace partner."

You write about an explanation that about 12% of the Israeli populace believe and espouse. That leaves 78% who would call you incredibly ill-informed at best, or a blatant propagandist at worst.

You are so far off the mark it's not even funny.

I wonder what sources Tano, Markus, and the others have consulted on the history of Israel and Zionism in order to come to these strongly held opinions. I mean, there's a lot of blatant propaganda out there. Have you read any books about the subject Tano? If so, which ones?

Marek:

There are currently 8 Arab Members of Knesset, from 3 political parties:

Balad:

1) Azmi Bishara
2) Wasil Taha
3) Jamal Zahalka

Hadash Ta'al

4) Mohammed Barakeh
5) Issam Makhoul
6) Ahmad Tibi

United Arab List

7) Abdulmalik Dehamshe
8) Talab El-Sana

Hmmm, someone just searched my blog for the phrase anti-American.

here are the results

I wonder if that person got what they were looking for and were able to support their thesis?

They were on the West Coast. Was it you Stu? You're in Canada right? That's North I know. Do they still have East and WEst up there? (I keed. I keed.)

Anyway, I'm honestly curious as to who was doing this and where I can look forward to seeing their takedown on me for being a little too quick to use the "aA" word. Or maybe they gave up this little gambit.

SoCalJustice,

Thanks - missed one whole list.

marek,
I'll accept your correction about tel aviv in particular. Whether it was a defined city or not is hardly the point. I picked a recognizable named place in Israel proper. The point is that there are many palestinians who have very deep roots in what is now israel. And their claims to that land is as strong or stronger than the claims of jews.

There were certainly non-jewish people living in ancient times in what is now israel. Their cultural religous lineage may be more complicated than the jewish lines, but the genes and the families have been there all along.

I did not claim that original zionism was a religous movement. Nonetheless, there was undeniably a religous aspect to it. I claimed that the Likud-based expansion into judea and samaria was religously justified. And even if you, and others, want to claim that there were other more important justifications, it doesnt counter the force of my argument - that these justifications do not justify the denial of the legitimate claims of the palestinians to that land.

I understand the force of the "reaction to the holocaust" idea, but once again, that doesnt justify taking the land of others. If we would have expelled the germans from Bavaria and given it over to the jews for a homeland, thus punishing the perpetrators for the crime, then maybe that would have been justified. But the arabs didnt commit the holocaust. It was simply damn convenient to have them lose their land to solve a western "problem". By what justification, other than colonial rule, was it for the british, or anyone else, to give away other peoples land?

And yes, the arabs resisted the idea. For them, it was very simple. Millions of people from other places were coming to occupy their land. What group on earth would not have reisisted that?

Tano:

The Arabs living in British Mandatory Palestine would have kept almost all "their land" had 5 Arab armies not attacked Israel in 1948.

The Arabs that would have remained inside what was designated as Israel would have been full citizens (as those that did are today.)

The Jews that would have remained in "Palestine" (quotes because it never came to fruition that day - and hasn't since) would have been ethnically cleansed, and the remaining Arabs would not have had any rights one associates with a democracy.

Sadly (I mean that in an ironically) there are consequences for starting (and losing) wars of annihilation. One of which is that the "Right of Return" as a Palestinian bargaining chip is completely worthless and mistrusted.

Of course, the situation is much more complicated than that - but the creation of Israel didn't have to necessitate anyone losing any land. The leaders of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq felt otherwise, though.

Is this YOUR conception of a nice guy? Nearly 2 million black people have been killed by the Arab supremacists in Sudan (about 500 times more than Palestinian victims), and he is telling about Isreal racism, a country, the only country where Arabs can vote!!!

500 hundred black victims don't get the same attention than a single Palestinian. He is nothing more than a chic racist, dee at heart he is bad as a KKK member.

Tano,

The Zionism envisaged sharing the land. At that time (beginning of 20 century) there were less than 500,000 Arabs in Palestine and today's Jordan. The projections called for a total population (mixed) of about 5 million. Today it is Israel of 6.5 million plus 4+ million Arabs. So there was room for everybody.

Zionism was mostly rejected by the orthodox Jews.
Most Orthodox Jews accepted Zionism much, much later.

While there are many Palestinians with legit roots in Palestine, today there is no practical way to accommodate their claims.

Seriously, do read the book I suggested. I just have no patience after 3 years of intifada, Oslo, rad map, etc. to repeat the same arguments over again.

Disgusting.

It is disgusting that, in the face of obvious hatrid and open support of violence against Israel, that Tano would argue to find a way to avoid denouncing the man holding this sign.

I don't give a damn if Tano really thinks that he's drawing a fine intellectual distinction here. I don't care if he thinks that legitimite grievances can be made against Israel or if he's got some conclusions about the way history has played out. That sort of thing makes no difference when you've got a bunch of men with bombs trying to kill you.

Tano writes: "Demonstrations are a bit like web conversations; subtly of language is not the vernacular. Would it be remarkable to read "smash the democrats", or "smash the liberal media", or even "smash the mullahs" - would that be necessarily interpreted as a call to genocide? You take the most extreme interpretation possible, that this guy is advocating a new holocaust, and then turn around and insinuate that people like me would not find that to be antisemitic or even objectionable."

I fail to understand the impulse to be charitable to a man who advocates something ugly: smashing a democratic state. I fail to see why I should extend the best intentions towards a man who holds a sign saying that socialism, an ideology that has proven to be a failure and the cause of misery and ruin countless times over, is the only choice.

The problem is, Tano can't admit that the "left" has truly lost not only its marbles, but its soul. Better to defend a man who has more in common with the HULK (me SMASH!) than admit the truth of things. But even if you extend charity to Tano and assume he really does think that nuances like his are worthwhile, the end result is the same: the left cannot police itself. Tano is a coward. To deal, to really deal with the man holding the sign, let alone islamic terrorists or other people under the left's protection, would require BACKBONE. You would have to look him in the eye, and say: Your murderous advocacy is disgusting and I hope you suffer for it. That is why leftists have been getting worse and worse since the War on Terror began. They'd rather stand with the most wicked factions out there in order to fight against the Republicans. And so those few "liberals" who really to believe in freedom and liberty, and who also see the company they're with, will either leave the left or will sit silent. Many have left, and many are sitting silent. And in the meantime, ANSWER openly advocates for armed resitsance against America (just look at their flyers), and sympathizes with anti-Semites and terrorists. And people like Tano will do nothing.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Michael -- you seem to ignore that:
1) Israeli settlement policy has been a bipartisan policy, supported by Labor as well as Likud. Likud saw settlements as a means to "Greater Israel." Labor embraced them as means to encourage their preferred solution to the Palestinian question, which was to return parts of the West Bank to Jordan.
2) Israelis outside the far left have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into even considering the possibility of a two-state solution. And unfortunately most of that dragging has taken the form of terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. I would have preferred that dragging to have instead taken the form of American pressure to implement a viable solution, and to refrain from importing post-Oslo religious fanatics and homeless Russian Jews into the occupied (i.e. non-annexed) territories.

Eric Hmmm, someone just searched my blog for the phrase anti-American.

here are the results

I wonder if that person got what they were looking for and were able to support their thesis?

That was me. I searched a bunch of blogs for the term. I had nothing nefarious in mind, just blog-hopping based on the issue. I read a couple of posts where you've obviously thought about the term in the past, and the issue of labelling people, but I wasn't going to post a thesis. Or even a comment.

Tano:

That's it. Just keep on spewing propaganda until everyone gets tired of going through the dreary work of "fisking" you at every point on which you're incorrect. Then, have the smug satisfaction that you've "won", or whatever it is you want out of this, as it's clearly not enlightenment. You never did answer my question as to what sources you consulted in order to come to these passionately held opinions, btw. I think it's a fair question as people with a higher degree of knowledge about this stuff have already proven you wrong on multiple points. So again, from whence do you draw the grand narrative you go into above?

I won't go into that part of it, as it's factually wrong on so many counts.

I love the whitewashing of the Holocaust though. Par for the course apparently.

Israel/Palestine was chosen as opposed to, say, Bavaria because, for one thing, the thousands of years of persecution culminating in the Holocaust made it pretty clear that Jews weren't welcome in Europe, especially Germany. Israel/Palestine was also chosen because there were already Jews living there and Jews had historical ties to the area dating back thousands of years.

I'd like to turn everyone's attention to this:

Millions of people from other places were coming to occupy their land.

While you dismiss Jewish claims to land on any basis: historical ties, the fact that many were already there, as refuge from the Holocaust, yet you unequivocally state that the land is "their [the Arabs'] land" and that it's being "occupied". What "land" in particular are you talking about? All of Israel? Are all Isrealis "occupiers"? Is that why you see no problem with the idea of "smashing the Jewish state"? And what limits if any should be placed on the methods of resistance?

Please tell us Tano.

Well I aint with the terroists, and I aint with you sydney.
Sorry if that is too nuanced for you, but dems the breaks.

SoCalJustice -- "The Arabs living in British Mandatory Palestine would have kept almost all "their land" had 5 Arab armies not attacked Israel in 1948.

The Arabs that would have remained inside what was designated as Israel would have been full citizens (as those that did are today.)"

Your statement is false. Those Arabs, and their descendents, of course, are the refugees. For the same reason that Israel today cannot allow them to return to their homes, Israel could not have allowed them to remain had their been no war. The fact is that the majority of Arabs in British Mandatory Palestine lived on the coastal flatlands, in the territory set aside for the Israeli state. A two-state solution in 1948 would have at least involved moving large number of Arabs from the coastal areas into today's West Bank.

Leftists seem to think that being silent on an issue means they are magically counted out of the equation. They mistakenly think silence, or doing nothing, communicates nothing, or, further still, they think that silence is actually the enlightened response when confronted with a bully, taking the adage ‘if you can’t say anything nice about someone…’ to the extreme. They don’t seem to understand that silence, or doing nothing, in the face of walking side by side with someone carrying an anti-semitic sign is communicating support for this anti-semtic sign. The left, needs to understand that saying or doing nothing is doing something and that something has real life consequences in the real world, just like saying nothing about a brutal totalitarian regime is tacitly supporting it by allowing it to go unchallenged. Leftists,like everyone else, are responsible for this, all on their own, and they need to take responsibility for this all on their own.

Leftists simply ignore what they don’t like or don’t want, as if ignoring something makes it go away. They think if they don’t actively do or say anything then they are not responsible for anything, which is the same as the illusion a baby has that the ball magically ceases to exist because he no longer sees it when mommy takes it away. It’s called object permanence and it’s an illusion that relativism (the sub-conscious religion of the left) also indulges in…‘if a tree falls in the forest’…blah, blah, blah. Sorry, you can’t get out of it… you are responsible for what you do and for what you don’t do. Everyone is responsible for the choices, both active and passive, they make.

Cara The left, needs to understand that saying or doing nothing is doing something

I have trouble accepting that post, Cara, as you say nothing denouncing Hitler's atrocities in it.

Markus Rose writes: Your statement is false. Those Arabs, and their descendents, of course, are the refugees.

No it's not.

If the Arab Armies had not attacked, and had their political leaders not told the Arabs to leave, there would have been very few refugees.

Certainly some Israelis wanted the Arabs out and some tried to make some leave - but the numbers that left because of "Zionist provocation" pale in comparison to those that left at the request of Arab political leaders who sought to (not unironically) "Smash the Jewish State" - upon which, they were told, the Arabs would have been able to return.

It didn't go according to plan though.

Markus,

1. Most Israelis (60-70%) were against most of the settlements in Gaza and WB.

2. The effect of terrorism was probably opposite to what you are suggesting. The attitude towards Palestinians have hardened and swung to the right.

3. Current support for the separation is the result of Sharon's action and position. Labour got trounced in last elections when they proposed their unilateral separation.

4. I believe that you don't have the break down of the settlers population by their ethnicity, orthodoxy, etc. Consequently, your comment about settlers is just an uninformed opinion.

5. To apply American pressure for a viable solution, there must first be one. Do you have one? Who and how determines what's viable?

Eric -- Palesinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust and are not responsible for atoning for it. Historical land claims are irrelevant as well. There have been Jews in Palestine "from time immemorial" just as there have been Zoroastrians in Persia. Both facts are irrelevant.

I accept the Israeli claim to the land based on the fact that people are there RIGHT NOW, and they're willing to fight to remain there. That's it. And once they show a willing to grant a modicum of justice to indigenous Arabs they have displaced by withdrawing from enough land to let those Arabs have a state, I'll add that I accept them becuase they're a decent people with a decent government.

I have trouble accepting that post, Cara, as you say nothing denouncing Hitler's atrocities in it.

That may have been the most fatuous remark I've ever seen.

Umm, in other words. Not exactly an apt analogy.

Eric,
First off, you are just talking through your hat. If you want to come over and inspect my library, maybe we can arrange something. But I dont buy your claim that others who are "more knowlegable" (have you inspected their libraries?) have contradicted anything I have said. Nor do I think you make a very interesting point by claiming that you are getting oh so tired of hearing me. Its a big world, and you are not obliged to converse with anyone you dont find interesting.

Second, the sleazy side of you is re-emerging - gotta learn how to keep that in check ol' buddy. Nice little subtle smear "whitewashing the holocaust". How's that? By asserting that it happened? By asserting that the germans were responsible? By claiming the arabs were not? What kind of garbage are you up to?

I was not, obviously, putting forth Bavaria as a serious alternative. The point was to show that if you use the holocaust as a justification for establishing israel (and of course, the ball was in motion long before WWII), then you are clearly asking the arabs to pay the price for the german crimes. Thats it. That was the point.
Surely an educated person as yourself is aware that the zionist movement was not unalterably set on Palestine as the place for the jewish homeland, at least in the beginning. There were religous objections amongst other reasons. Herzl himself, I seem to recall, had negotiations with the British Colonial office over places like Uganda. THe point being, that the concept was imposed by outside forces, without the agreement of the people living there. And hence the resistance.

I did not dismiss any historical right for jews to live in the area. Those who were living there all along had as much right as the arabs living there to remain and to live in peace with everyone else. But the door was open to a single ethnic group emigrating there en masse, without the consent of the people living there, and many of them were forced from their land.
I cannot deny that if I had been born a palestinian, I would probably have wanted to resist. I think the same is true for everyone here.
I think the palestinians in general should be commmended for making the progress that many of them had in accepting israel. It has been a great injustice to them, and they have been forced to that point, but many have come to peace with it.

As to the resistance - I think it should be limited to as little violence as possible (preferably none) so long as the legitimate rights of the palestinians is secured.

And once they show a willing to grant a modicum of justice to indigenous Arabs they have displaced by withdrawing from enough land to let those Arabs have a state

Dude, I don't know if you heard, but they offered them 90% of the land they wanted a few years back. The response: a brutal campaign of mass murder against Israeli civilians.

This is getting ridiculous.

Markus Rose writes: And once they show a willing to grant a modicum of justice to indigenous Arabs they have displaced by withdrawing from enough land to let those Arabs have a state, I'll add that I accept them becuase they're a decent people with a decent government.

And just out of curiosity (since you didn't address it), do you think the "indigenous" Arabs are under any positive obligations whatsoever to help facilitate such a withdrawal?

Eric That may have been the most fatuous remark I've ever seen.

Umm, in other words. Not exactly an apt analogy.

Thank you, thank you very much. I try.

Tano,

I know you believe that there is a third way between a man with a gun and another's life, but there really isn't. The problem with liberalism in general is a failure to understand basic realities: mere words alone will not stop a man from pulling a trigger to kill an innocent - some kind of action instead is necessary. In a life-or-death issue, there IS no other way.

The concern isn't that YOU won't defend the lives of the innocent. I know you won't. The concern is that millions of leftists like you will not. Such attitudes spell the defeat of the West, and the deaths of innocents that otherwise could've been saved if the left weren't engaged in fantastical delusions and the rejection of reality.

And strangely enough, aside from making idiotic nuanced arguments, I've never really heard of the practical side to these so-called "third ways." Unless you advocate placing your body in the path between the bullet and my own, you really can't DO anything (and by "DO" I mean action, as opposed to words). A common falacy of my profession, lawyers, is that they believe that words can solve all problems. THEY CANNOT. There are men out there who are dedicated to killing all Israelis and all Americans, and nothing you say will make a darn bit of difference. Ideas and action is born from good words, but your words offer nothing. WHAT WILL YOU DO? "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" means that you WORK for one side or the other. Right now, your inaction in working towards innocents, and your nuanced defense of pro-violence and pro-nihilist ideologies means you're a de-facto advocate of terrorism. Despite your best intentions, which I'll assume for purposes of this discussion are probably good.

Ultimately, you reject that terrorism is a life-or-death issue. You believe that there are alternative ways. Well, call me a radical, but I've never seen a 3rd alternative to life or death.

Tano:

I'm sincerely curious as to what sources you've read that have led you to these conclusions because my reading on this subject has led me to vastly different ones. I wondered if it maybe had something to do with the sources, as there are a lot of undeniably propagandistic publications concering Israel and Zionism. That's the only reason I ask. For some reason you've been cagey about answering the question.

Yes, the Holocaust thing was a bit of a stretch, but it's amazing that you would refer to it as "sleazy" when you've spent countless posts with such sophistry and word games as somehow turning the meaning of smash into oppose. (I'd bet that's not even in the OED).

I think the palestinians in general should be commmended for making the progress that many of them had in accepting israel.

Well, since recent opinion polls show that something like 70% of Palestinians support "suicide bombing" of Israeli civilians I think I'll hold off on that commendation.

Since you claim to be of the "resistance" frame of mind, I was wondering. If you live in America you've probably seen a lot of changes in the neighborhood you grew up in, with lots of foreigners moving in, some from thousands of miles away. Have you felt compelled to "resist" them? If not, why not?

Markus,

You're forgetting that the first intifada was largely non-violent civil disobediance with a small amount of terrorism by extremist factions. THAT was what convinced Israelis to work toward a Palestinian state. It was the second ultra-violent intifada that led most Israelis to elect Ariel Sharon.

Also, a question: Do you support the Right of Return? For the Israeli left it's a non-starter because they know it would be the end of their country. The Jews would be vulnerable to racial minority status, living among the most anti-Semitic people on Earth.

d-p-u:

I have trouble accepting that post, Cara, as you say nothing denouncing Hitler's atrocities in it.

eric:

That may have been the most fatuous remark I've ever seen.

me: fatuous? it was hilarious.

So Cal Justice --
I think you missed my point. Had there been no war in 1948, or any other excuse to remove the Arabs, there would have been at least 750,000 more Arabs in the new state of Israel than there actually ended up being. These Arabs and their descendents would be a majority or a near majority in Israel today. Given these facts, Israel owes its existence to Arab dispossession, and ought to be decent enough to admit this and be willing to make, shall we say, reparations.

Oberon,

If the Holocaust were happening right now and Cara had never in her life said anything against it and spent all her political energy opposing the resistance to Adolf Hitler, d-p-u would be right. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Markus,

We can talk about Israeli reparations to Palestinians AFTER Palestinians stop trying to wipe Israelis off the face of the earth.

I think the fact that the Palestinians have been trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth for more than a half century voids any reparations they might otherwise be entitled to, but that's just me.

Sydny,
If you are so obsessed with proclaiming your grand theories of political philosphy, replete with all manner of "wimpiness" insults against "leftists", then go right ahead. But please leave me out of it. I am not your stalking horse. You dont have the slightest clue as to who I am, to say nothing of what I do or would do in any given situation.
In other words, bug off.

MJT If the Holocaust were happening right now and Cara had never in her life said anything against it and spent all her political energy opposing the resistance to Adolf Hitler, d-p-u would be right. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

But funny.

Michael -- I agree with you that the first Intifada was much more nonviolent. I also agree with you that the second Intifada helped to elect Sharon. (although everybody seems to have forgot that the Barak government fell apart and elections had to be called because he offered a tiny bit of Jerusalem at Camp David.) Arafat should have responded to Clinton's December 2000 overture with a counteroffer along the lines of the provisions in the Geneva Accord. His failure to do something along those lines should have forever discredited him as a leader of his people. When discussing the situation with Palestinians, this is what I stress.

Every reasonable person, including me, knows that Israel cannot be expected to grant unlimited right of return. I support a very limited, largely symbolic right of return for some Palestinians with extremely strong pre-1967 land claims. For the rest of the refugees, I support other forms of reparation.

The Geneva Accord had some interesting ways of handling the right to return. Worth a read.

The right of retun is obviously impossible for Israel to grant, so the Palestinians should drop it if they want peace. However, it is an identical claim to that on which Zionism was founded, which is why they won't.

Michael -- "I think the fact that the Palestinians have been trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth for more than a half century voids any reparations they might otherwise be entitled to, but that's just me."

But don't you also see how this seems unfair from the Palestinian perspective? Their response would be: "OK, my land has been taken from me, I've been trying to get it back for 55 years, and now you're telling me I've lost my right not only to the land, but to being compensated for it, because I've been trying to get it back?"

This is how the Palestinians that I have talked to, mostly liberal, western ones, willing to go along with a two state solution, view the situation, and I can see where they are coming from.

he's probably an agent provacateur. the fbi used to send in people like that to discredit the peace movement in the 1960's and 1970s.

michael, the majority of the newspapers in the US editoriaised in favor of war. your facts on the extent of 'antiwar' fervor in the press is mistaken. look at cnn's prowar coverage, unquestioning belief in the WMD scare, etc.

Markus,

We aren't really very far apart on this question from a practical perspective. Only slightly.

And I'm with Mork - the Palestinians should just drop the right of return, at least those who want peace.

Those who would rather destroy Israel can eat a bullet.

No, dropping the right of return isn't fair to them. I understand that. But they wouldn't be the only one affected by it. There are two groups of people who hate each other on one swath of land. They need to divide up that land be separated for a while. Nothing else whatseover will lead to peace between them.

Generally speaking, people who cannot let go of the past do not have a future. For the sake of Israelis, Palastinians and everybody else, the Palastinians need to get over their historical grievances. What was done to them in 1948 may have been unfair (I say may because there is plenty of history of Jews being dispossessed of their land or killed in "Palestine"), but it's done and cannot be undone. The "Right of Return," as understood by the Palestinians involves land currently owned by Israelis being turned over to them; this would inevitably work an injustice on those who have owned the land since 1948, and one injustice does not cancel out another. The mess in Israel/Palestine will never be sorted out until the Palestinians stop considering themselves victims, because a victim's appetite for compensation is insatiable.

Michael -- Sure, we aren't that far apart. And if I was like your typical Palestinian, and you were like a typical Israeli, they would have worked something out a long time ago. The problem is that your typical Israeli has tended to come across more like Eric Deamer, or HA, or some other delightfully openminded individual, while your typical Palestinian comes across like the guy in the photo that we have been discussing. No agreement is possible with such attitudes, and I see nothing to change this without 1) US pressure 2) a whole lot more disgust, suffering and sorrow in the face of further senseless violence. Or some combination of the two.

But maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll have to see what changes after the wall goes up.

Markus,

Do you ever read The Jerusalem Post or Ha'aretz? They come across nothing like HA.

Israel is a pretty liberal place. If the Palestinians were exactly like them there would be no problems today at all.

Meanwhile, the Israelis could be as nice as the Canadians and there would still be war.

Markus Rose: Given these facts, Israel owes its existence to Arab dispossession, and ought to be decent enough to admit this and be willing to make, shall we say, reparations.

So they need to be more decent than they're already being to people who routinely call for the destruction of their state, and repeatedly act on those calls in the form of teaching children that the path towards heaven is to kill as many Jews as possible by strapping a bomb filled with nails, bullets and rat poison onto their body, and going to a place with a high civilian count and detonating the bomb?

Talk of reparations (which, btw, there have been for years) is supposed to stop this?

Look - I'm in favor of a two state solution too, I want as many of the settlements dismantled as possible. I don't have a problem with most of what's in the Geneva Accords and I'm not opposed to the combination of the international community and Israel paying some form of reparations - despite the fact that UNRWA and the EU Aid rolls have amounted to not much more than a PLO slush fund and a very big reason for Arafat to maintain the status quo.

But the Palestinians and their enablers/apologists have so infantilized any sense of responsibility on their part it's as if nothing they do matters and it's only the Israelis holding up the peace process. That's just silly.

Both sides have responsibilities. It sucks for the Palestinians (and the Israelis) that the Palestinians haven't figured that out yet. And it doesn't really help when their supporters dismiss any sense of obligation on their part, because the situation is "unfair."

It was unfair when 5 Arab armies tried to "Smash the Jewish State." It was not unfair that the attempt was unsuccessful.

And yes, average Palestinians have nothing to do with most of what's going on - that is a huge, huge tragedy. But when your leaders announce a policy of "no peace, no negotiation, no recognition" then you're kind of screwed and that's unfair - especially when you have no say in it. That dictat lasted publicly up through the Madrid conference. 23 years of doing nothing but digging in their heels and making the situation worse. That cannot be, and hasn't been, changed overnight.

I'll ask again: do you think the Palestinians have any affirmative obligations that could help them get out of an "unfair" situation?

Israel is a pretty liberal place. If the Palestinians were exactly like them there would be no problems today at all.

Michael, you're kidding yourself if you don't think there are Israeli extremists in sufficient numbers to have a real impact on the chances of peace.

Did you read Jeffry Goldberg's piece in the New Yorker a couple of weeks ago. It's now online here:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040531fa_fact2_a

Mork,

I know there are loony Israelis. I've read all about them. But if the worst of the Palestinians were like the worst of the Israelis, and matched them in numbers, the two sides could come to an agreement because the majorities on each side would elect reasonable people to office.

I haven't read that particular piece by Goldberg, but I will. I have a subscription to the magazine, and he's a fantastic reporter.

Markus --

No amount of US pressure is going to make up for the fundamental unreasonableness of the Palestinians. This issue will not be settled until the Palestinians get their extremists under control, and that will not happen until the "silent majority" (if there is one) realizes that enough blood has been shed. Make no mistake -- the Israelis have demonstrated that they can control their wingnuts (witness the proposals advanced by various Israeli PM's) -- the problem rests squarely in the lap of the Palistinians.

Michael, I think that may well be true in isolation, but that strikes me as a pretty glib summation of a much more complicated set of causes and effects ... particularly if you're going to go on to use that conclusion as a basis for excusing pretty much anything that Israel does. I think the Goldberg piece does a very nice job of summarizing the way both sides are trapped by the other's actions and debased by their reactions to them.

I don't think the Israelis have proven they can control their wingnuts.

Having said that, no country really can. But they have proven that they can control them better than the Palestinians - who not only don't even try to stop them but actively encourage them - so that's not exactly a high bar.

Yes, the only people that anyone can really name are Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir. But that's two too many. And I'm in no way trying to compare the Israeli far-right nutbar wing with Hamas, PIJ or even the P.A.

However, Yizthak Rabin is dead and I don't think removing the settlements (especially a certain few in the West Bank) is going to be a walk in the park.

Have you ever seen the photos of the IDF dismantling the hilltop outposts? These people don't always go quietly. Yes, they are not strapping bombs on their bodies, but they don't make it easy for the IDF either.

There are definitely elements in the Israeli populace that are hinderances to any comprehensive peace plan.

However, as others have said, those elements are a lot smaller than they're counterparts on the Palestinian side - but they are powerful elements nonetheless and should not be dismissed.

They should also not be used as an excuse for further, continued Palestinian inaction.

MJT/Markus,

Judging by the way you wear it on your sleaves, you guys have obviously impressed yourselves with your own open-mindedness. I'm not so impressed.

Mork,

I know it was glib. I wasn't trying to sum up anything, but instead to say it won't do much good to lean on the Israelis more than on the Palestinians. First get the Palestinians to behave by civilized norms. Then lean on both equally. Leaning on Israel is a waste of time and effort right now and amounts to nothing more than posturing for PR in front of people who won't acknowledge the effort in any case. How much credit do Clinton and Barak get in the Middle East? Almost zero. How much blame does Arafat get? Almost zero. The situation is absurd.

One side is a lot more intransigent than the other. Only one side offered a real peace deal to the other, and only one side said no. Only one side officially encourages genocide, and only one side has even an ounce of respect for the laws of war. Under these conditions it hardly matter that Israel, like every other country, has its share of loons who don't know how to behave. At least Israel's loons haven't formed roaming anti-civilian death squads in Gaza or anywhere else.

HA, I haven't the slightest idea what it is I'm wearing on my sleeve that doesn't "impress" you.

It says a lot about Markus that "nothing can change this without 1) US pressure 2) a whole lot more disgust, suffering and sorrow in the face of further senseless violence."

These two things just come down to one, right? It says a lot that "Arab pressure" and "European pressure" is so ineffective. I would say nothing can change as long as this pathetic paradigm remains prevalent among the "sophisticated".

MJT: Meanwhile, the Israelis could be as nice as the Canadians and there would still be war.

You know, as a Canadian. I'm getting sick and tired of being held up as the exemplar of niceness. Dammit, we can be mean and obnoxious too!

noche: he's probably an agent provacateur. the fbi used to send in people like that to discredit the peace movement in the 1960's and 1970s.

I can't believe it took so long for somebody to trot this out.

Dave, as a Canadian, may I just ask...

What the hell are you doing at the University of North Carolina?!

Oh, and you're probably right about Canadians getting a pretty bad rap. Any nation so into hockey can't possibly be that sissified. I sure know if I had to live in cold-ass temperatures like that, that I'd be more than a little cranky most the time too. It's too bad your Flames choked to a team based out of sunny Florida, though (GO USA!).

Okay, reading over what I wrote it looks like I just said I'm from Canada. That totally came out wrong because I'm not. Just thought I oughta clear that one up before someone called me on it.

Dave: You know, as a Canadian. I'm getting sick and tired of being held up as the exemplar of niceness. Dammit, we can be mean and obnoxious too!

I know, I've been to Quebec.

I'm kidding. Not about going to Quebec, but about the Quebecois being mean and obnoxious. They were all perfectly nice to me. You've earned your rep, Dave, but if it makes you feel better the last troll I kicked out of here lives somewhere in Ontario. I kicked him out because he is an asshole.

MJT,

HA, I haven't the slightest idea what it is I'm wearing on my sleeve that doesn't "impress" you.

Your "open-mindedness." If you define this quality as the willingness to change one's opinion in light of new information, then I just don't see it. Although I'd give you a few more points in this regard than I would Markus, you still have a stubborn reactionary streak.

And before you accuse me of being trollish, note that it was you and Markus who brought me up in order to flaunt your own self-evident open-mindedness in comparison, not the reverse. I would be quite content to continue lurking and let the numerous unknown unknowns remain unknown.

The Bureau also infiltrated the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) and disrupted its work all across the country. FBI agent Frank Varelli admitted that from 1981 to 1984, he was paid to infiltrate and break up the Dallas chapter of CISPES, to which end he and his cohorts put out bogus literature under the CISPES name, burglarized CISPES members' homes and paid right-wing activists to start fights at CISPES rallies. As part of his work, he routinely exchanged information about US and Central American activists with the Salvadoran National Guard, the sponsors of that country's death squads.

http://www.wakeupmag.co.uk/articles/peacemovement.htm

Below is an example of the open-mindedness and moderation for which Markus lauds himself:

And once they [the Israelis] show a willing[ness] to grant a modicum of justice to indigenous Arabs they have displaced by withdrawing from enough land to let those Arabs have a state,

When I point out the fact that the Israelis have offered just that, and they got the second intifada as a response to that offer, I'm accused of not being "open-minded" enough.

Rest assured Markus the Palestinian leadership is a lot like you.

Michael:

If the troll you are speaking of is named McLelland, can't say that I blame you. BTW, that Quebec line was priceless. I'm actually being semi-serious about being known for being nice though. There was once a Bugsy Bunny cartoom where Bugs gets all upset because the bounty on rabbits is only 2 cents, since rabbits are cute and harmless. Well, Ol' Bugs gets upset and commits a string of crimes (saws Florida off so that it floats away, fills in the Grand Canyon) until the bounty on him is a million dollars. It would be nice if once in a while Canadians could be that bad ass. Probably never happen though.

Grant:

I'm actually a graduate of UNC, don't live there anymore. I still use the email address on blogs so that I don't get trollish spam in my main email.

not conspiracy theory, just history:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1058

btw, on yesteday's thread about MLK and the urban myth of his anti-semitism remarks:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kiblawi01172004.html

eric -- you were outrageously selective in your account of what happened in 2000. Yes, Barak offered a portion of the West Bank, yes the second intifada began. You left out the apparent "take it or leave it" nature of Barak's initial Camp David offer, the collapse of Barak's government after he offered to cede tiny parts of East Jerusalem (not the Temple Mount), Sharon's provocation at the Temple Mount, the response of Israeli police to ensuing demonstrations...in short, you left out everything that didn't contribute to the one-sided story that you wish to tell.

Robert Malley, one of the US negotiatiors at Camp David, co-wrote a piece in the NY Review of Books called Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors, in which he pointed out the mistakes on both sides. Ehud Barak, in an interview by Benny Morris, later took issue with some of Mr. Malley's assertions. In case you are interested in a fuller account of what went on in 2000, here are the links to the initial article and the follow up interview:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15501

SoCalJustice -- I think the Palestinian leadership has an "affirmative obligation" to make clear that they are willing to make peace with the Jewish majority state of Israel ONCE THEY GET a viable country of their own. I tell this to every pro-Palestinian whom I discuss this issue with.

There's also this from Gush Shalom in Israel:

http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

I would add again that the Palestinians ought to replace Arafat. His conduct in 2000 was terrible, as Barak and apparently Clinton indicate (I look forward to reading Clinton's book on this issue). I hesitate to call this an "affirmative obligation", since that would be a double-standard, as no one is saying that Sharon, the man responsible for the hacking deaths of a thousand Palestinians in Lebanon, cannot represent Israel. But Palestinians continuing to have faith in Arafat, or Hamas, means Paslestinians continuing to be very, very stupid and self-defeating.

Markus:

To begin with, you're response to SoCal Justice is simply jaw-dropping, and shows such a divergence of first principles that I think further discussion is futile.

In effect, if I understand you correctly and you weren't forced by lack of space into compressing your argument too far, you seem to say that the Palestinian leadership has no obligation whatsoever to stop their brutal war on Israeli civilians until they are given a "a viable country of their own". How could you possibly ask Israel, or any other country, to agree to such a state of affairs? Why would anyone with basic rational self-interest in their own survival willingly consent to creating a situation in which they have a hostile country next door? Who would rule this "viable country" by the way? The terrorist kleptocrats of Ramallah? And, do we really want to create the precedent that terrorism is rewarded with statehood? What implications do you think that would have world wide?

Even most leftists assent that the Palestinian Authority should at least promise to try to crack down on the mass murdering of Israeli civilians, but you seem to skip the facile, empty promise step and go right to the "let's give 'em a state" step.

At any rate, yes my description of events was somewhat glib and was extraordinarily compressed, but your pettifoggery does nothing to contradict the basic facts, which even you admit. Again, you claim that Israel should offer a "modicum of justice". Israel offered 85-90% of what Arafat claimed to want at the time, and you start talking about various diplomatic niceties and issues secondary to what you yourself claimed was the main issue.

As far as the "temple mount provocation" I'll try to find a link, but there has been extensive debunking of this notion by multiple sources. Palestinian terrorists exagerrated what Sharon was doing there and used it as a retroactive justification for the intifada which they were planning anyway.

The New YOrk Review of Books publishes pieces which call for the end of Israel's exstence as a Jewish state. I realize that there is some good stuff in there and I'm not dismissing the article just for that, but it's not the first place I'd look for balanced commentary on this issue.

Eric Deamer -- Ok I should have added that Palestinians have an obligation not to committ war crimes in their fight for statehood. This means no deliberate targeting of civilians. Satisfied?

Terrorism often is rewarded with statehood. Ask the French about Algeria, ask the British about Palestine...

At the same time, groups seeking independence from a greater power that are unwilling and unable to resort to violence are usually ignored.

The right to national sovereignty generally flows out of the barrel of gun.

I find each of these assertions I am making troubling. I hope you can prove that I am mistaken.

HA: If you define this quality as the willingness to change one's opinion in light of new information, then I just don't see it.

Whatever.

Since we're on the subject of Israel and the Palestinians, my position was well to the left of Markus's long after 9/11. Then I read more books on the subject. I was also disgusted with the fact that the ramp-up of terrorism by Palestinians, culminating in the Passover Massacre, had no effect on the analysis of some people.

So you'll excuse me if I don't really care if you "see" the fact that I can change my mind once in a while.

Markus,

Algerians were not trying to conquer Paris. That's something to keep in mind if you would like to be slightly less troubled by the points you cited above.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are fighting for Tel Aviv.

Markus:

You raise a good point vis-a-vis violence and the founding of states. However, and this is just me "thinking out loud" here, I think the distinction is between violence in the form of conventional war and in the form of terrorism. For instance, the English are still in Northern Ireland, the Basques still don't have a state etc. (I forget what exactly is going on in Sri Lanka these days). Part of the reason, for this, I speculate, is that the "greater powers" have generally decided, for the sake of their own survival, that terrorism shouldn't be rewarded. If it was, anyone who had a grievance, legimiate or not, would just start blowing themselves up.

I won't get into the King David hotel thing for the gazillionth time.

Algeria was purely France trying to hold onto its colonial empire. Israel, though some on the far left try to say so (you, Markus, don't seem to be of this caste of mind) is not a colonial enterprise in that sense, so it's not really analogous, IMO.

As MJT wrote awhile back in his excellent piece "The Globalization of Gaza", there are plenty of stateless Muslims around, or areas that Muslims feel they should have sovereignity: Kashmir, the Uighur region of Western China, the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Chechnya. So far, the precedent has been set that terrorism will not get them their demands. Changing that policy in this specific sense is what I'm talking about.

Hi everyone. I'm the person who took the picture this discussion is all about. If anyone thinks this sign was "taken out of context," or that the guy carrying the sign might have been "challenged" by his fellow protesters, or that such signs are rare: perhaps it is time for you to WAKE UP. I dare you -- I dare all of you -- to visit my Web site and see not just hundreds of similar such signs, but incredible movies and videos of what these rallies are like. Look at this before you speak:

http://users.lmi.net/zombie
http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rallies_june_5+6_2004/counter-protest_movies/

If those sites are overloaded, you can view them at any of several mirrors:

http://zombie-mirror.gittelman.org/
http://www.swankyconservative.com/zombiepics/
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004009.html
http://www.jerusalemposts.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=38320#38320
http://members.myactv.net/~lgf/sf_rallies_june_5+6_2004.html

MJT,

So you'll excuse me if I don't really care if you "see" the fact that I can change my mind once in a while.

Well I did say I give you more points for "open-mindedness" than I would Markus. But you're right, I damned you with faint praise. I had Markus more in mind when I made that comment, but by lumping you in with him I missed the mark. You have obviously changed views on a many important issues which is why I find your blog interesting. So I withdraw the comment to the extent it applied to you and submit an apology in its place.

Having said that, I still think you have a stubborn streak. I can't go too soft all at once.

HA,

Thanks.

I do have a stubborn steak. No argument there.

These people are the minority, which should be perfectly obvious. I won't make all of the numerous counter-arguments to the idea of liberal anti-Semitism, because they've all been made before and those with a right-wing or pro-Israel ideological agenda simply reject them without consideration, and in any case arguing against spurious, meritless charges only lends legitimacy to those who wish to discredit their political opponents using all means at their disposal. I will say this: it's just as easy to point to a few examples on the right, such as Michael Savage or Reverend Phelps of godhatesfags.com fame and say they represent the right, but I don't think that would be fair either. What is usually called anti-Semitism is simple rejection of Israeli policies and American support for them. Of course there are real anti-Semites who use the tolerant and trusting nature (and yes, even naivete) of many liberals to promote their hateful agenda, but again, I would say the same is true of those with more traditional American racist views who have gained entry into the Republican party. What's the excuse there? Certainly not tolerance and openness.

The point is simply this: even if there are some anti-Semites among the anti-war crowd, it is both illogical and counter-productive to paint the anti-war movement with such a broad brush. Accusing people who for the most part have only the best intentions of being motivated by a mentality that is antithetical to their philosophy tends to cause defensiveness rather than a change in behavior. And besides that, the charge has become so commonplace that I believe it is actually beginning to lose its teeth. People are beginning to recognize that being accused of anti-Semitism is sort of like the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" trap. There's simply no way to respond to the charge without being defensive, and since anything from condemnation of Israeli troops who shoot Palestinian children to not being a big fan of Woody Allen can bring charges of anti-Semitism, it's kind of hard to avoid.

I once got a socialist pamphlet at a MLK day parade, so everyone who likes Martin Luther King, Jr. is a socialist.

MJT,

I do have a stubborn steak.

Who doesn't? It just depends on the issue.

Mike,

What is usually called anti-Semitism is simple rejection of Israeli policies and American support for them.

You should ask yourself what it is about YOUR cause that is attracting genocidal anti-semites to support it. Even IF you don't share their ends, the means to YOUR desired ends would be instead the means to THEIR desired ends. They understand this even IF you don't which is why they flock to your cause.

And the fact that the so-called "peace" movement is making absolutely no effort whatsoever to purge their movement of the genocidal anti-semites joining it calls into question the motivations of all who CLAIM noble intent. Your movement isn't a "peace" movement. Its a genocide movement. Wittingly or unwittingly, you are serving the purpose of those who would commit genocide if given the chance.

"I think the Palestinian leadership has an "affirmative obligation" to make clear that they are willing to make peace with the Jewish majority state of Israel ONCE THEY GET a viable country of their own. I tell this to every pro-Palestinian whom I discuss this issue with. "

It has been done that way for years to no effect.

How about we try peace first then a country?

" since anything from condemnation of Israeli troops who shoot Palestinian children to not being a big fan of Woody Allen can bring charges of anti-Semitism, it's kind of hard to avoid."

I'd say the problem is why there is so much condemnation of Israeli troops who accidently kill Arab children and none against Arabs who intentionally murder Israeli children.

i.e. war tradgedies vs war crimes. Evidently the left has a hard time telling the difference.

Bush in a landslide. I say this as a person who understands Bush's biggest advantage in this election: Kerry.

M. Simon:

There is always condemnation of suicide bombings, which I'm sure you know. The difference is that those on the left tend to make an attempt to understand aberrant behavior rather than simply condemning those who practice it as unreasoning animals. This is also true domestically with urban crime. The right's idea of effective law enforcement is to punish drug possession with 10-year jail terms. Ever consider that it might be a better idea to address the poverty that drives people to try to escape from reality by taking drugs?

The same is true in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians are subjected to treatment that Americans simply would not take sitting down (in fact, we didn't- about 200 years ago). They respond in horrible ways that are far more an expression of rage at their treatment than stand-alone hatred of Jews. This does not justify suicide bombings, but nor do suicide bombings justify leveling hundreds of homes. Both sides commit wrongs, neither side is innocent, and pretending that the left in general is indifferent to Israeli deaths is pure disingenuousness. It's a very simple rhetorical tool which, unfortunately, is used frequently by both sides (though more often and more effectively by the right). However, I know as a liberal that I do not fit any of the extremist descriptions you people invent. Now that I think about it, this really is a pattern with the right: take a few marginal examples and turn them into a broad brush with which to paint the entire group. The same is done to Muslims and Arabs, blacks, immigrants, the poor, foreigners in general, and even Canadians (in which case you might actually be right).

If you're at all interested, you can read a summary of my position on the relation of historical injustices committed against Jews to the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict here.

HA -- it seems that your problem is not with people who lack "willingness to change [their] opinion in light of new information", but rather with people who disagree with you.

I read a lot of conservative, right-leaning literature, and as a result of that reading, as well as life experience, I've made turns of around 90 degree on a whole host of issues. (generally not 180 degree turns however.) I appreciate a good argument, or a thorough fisking of some unsupportable bias I may have.

But in order to persuade me to change my view, a little or a lot, your pronoucements have to be accompanied by solid facts, and they have to follow logically from those facts.

An example of an illogical or unproven prounoucement would be this above comment of yours: "You should ask yourself what it is about YOUR cause that is attracting genocidal anti-semites to support it. Even IF you don't share their ends, the means to YOUR desired ends would be instead the means to THEIR desired ends."

This is similar to a common far left-wing slur: the Ku Klux Klan endorses Reagan -- and then some arrogant leftist "asks" just what is it about Republicans that makes a few racists agree with them so much. In your example, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and neo-nazi's are all genocidal movements opposed to removing Saadam and to Israel's settlement policy, therefore those who oppose regime change or Israel's settlement policy, for whatever reason, are part of a "genocide movement." One could just as easily argue that invading Iraq or building settlements has motivated thousands to join Al-Qaeda, therefore, supporters of regime change endorse genocide. Both charges are incendiary -- and illogical. And they're not going to convince me or anyone else to see the error of our ways.

Markus,

You're rationalizing.

While it is true that anti semitism is making a comeback. It is also true that anti Christian is coming about. Along with anti Muslim. Seems someone somewhere is dead set on being a fanatic and blaiming all the troubles of the world, their love life, and economic futures on whether or not another race is allowed to live or die.

I would instead say there is a rise in fanaticism. It becomes even more apparent when you disagree with people on blogs and are automatically labeled left or right, when the truth may be you are apolitical. But the need to draw sides is even here. Fanaticism is growing. People are marking boundries all over the world, and unless we start speaking up seems to me we'll all be living in little enclaves of like minded people shooting at the latest version of the Hatfields, or McCoys.

I wonder if the couch potato in the picture holding the poster ever read the 154 Jihad Verses in the Koran:
www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

Actually, he could well turn out as a "nice church person".