[independent media
centre]
הפש
English
Hebrew
Arabic

שופיח

םדקתמ שופיח


תא יפיסוה
תמישרל ךלש לאודה
ונלש הצופתה
ךל חלשנ ונאו
.םינוכדע

רמאמ םסרפ
,טסקט חלש
וא לוק ,תונומת
תורישי ואדיו
.השילגה תנכותמ
תושדח
ינכדע רוקיס
.םיעורא לש
קזבמ
יאנותיעה התא
!ךמצע לש
םיעורא ןמוי
האחמ ,םיעורא
תויוליעפו
סקדניא
םירתאל םירושיק
ןאכ
ןאכ תעה בתכ
וידר
טנרטניא וידר
ואדיו
יחרזא ןמוי
םילבכב קבאמ



www.indymedia.org

Projects
climate
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa
ambazonia
nigeria
south africa

Canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

East Asia
japan

Europe
athens
austria
barcelona
belgium
bristol
cyprus
euskal herria
finland
galiza
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
lille
madrid
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west vlaanderen

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
qollasuyu
rosario
sonora
tijuana
uruguay

Pacific
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
perth
sydney

South Asia
india
mumbai

United States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
danbury, ct
dc
hawaii
houston
idaho
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rocky mountain
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

West Asia
beirut
israel
palestine

Process
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

 

 


technlogy by cat@lyst and IMC Geeks

Hosting sponsored by:
sweethome

indymedia news about us

No, it's not anti-semitic Latin
by Judith Butler in London Review of Books 4:11pm Sun Aug 17 '03

London Review of Books
LRB | Vol. 25 No. 16 dated 21 August 2003
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n16/butl02_.html

print article

LRB | Vol. 25 No. 16 dated 21 August 2003

"Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent."

Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002

The article by Judith Butler masterfully exposes Summers' lack of intellectual coherence.

add your comments


 

No, it's not anti-semitic Latin
by Judith Butler 4:19pm Sun Aug 17 '03

print comment

No, it's not anti-semitic

Judith Butler

Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002

When the president of Harvard University declared that to criticise Israel at this time and to call on universities to divest from Israel are 'actions that are anti-semitic in their effect, if not their intent', he introduced a distinction between effective and intentional anti-semitism that is controversial at best. The counter-charge has been that in making his statement, Summers has struck a blow against academic freedom, in effect, if not in intent. Although he insisted that he meant nothing censorious by his remarks, and that he is in favour of Israeli policy being 'debated freely and civilly', his words have had a chilling effect on political discourse. Among those actions which he called 'effectively anti-semitic' were European boycotts of Israel, anti-globalisation rallies at which criticisms of Israel were voiced, and fund-raising efforts for organisations of 'questionable political provenance'. Of local concern to him, however, was a divestment petition drafted by MIT and Harvard faculty members who oppose Israel's current occupation and its treatment of Palestinians. Summers asked why Israel was being 'singled out . . . among all nations' for a divestment campaign, suggesting that the singling out was evidence of anti-semitic intentions. And though he claimed that aspects of Israel's 'foreign and defence' policy 'can be and should be vigorously challenged', it was unclear how such challenges could or would take place without being construed as anti-Israel, and why these policy issues, which include occupation, ought not to be vigorously challenged through a divestment campaign. It would seem that calling for divestment is something other than a legitimately 'vigorous challenge', but we are not given any criteria by which to adjudicate between vigorous challenges that should be articulated, and those which carry the 'effective' force of anti-semitism.

Summers is right to voice concern about rising anti-semitism, and every progressive person ought to challenge anti-semitism vigorously wherever it occurs. It seems, though, that historically we have now reached a position in which Jews cannot legitimately be understood always and only as presumptive victims. Sometimes we surely are, but sometimes we surely are not. No political ethics can start from the assumption that Jews monopolise the position of victim. 'Victim' is a quickly transposable term: it can shift from minute to minute, from the Jew killed by suicide bombers on a bus to the Palestinian child killed by Israeli gunfire. The public sphere needs to be one in which both kinds of violence are challenged insistently and in the name of justice.

If we think that to criticise Israeli violence, or to call for economic pressure to be put on the Israeli state to change its policies, is to be 'effectively anti-semitic', we will fail to voice our opposition for fear of being named as part of an anti-semitic enterprise. No label could be worse for a Jew, who knows that, ethically and politically, the position with which it would be unbearable to identify is that of the anti-semite. The ethical framework within which most progressive Jews operate takes the form of the following question: will we be silent (and thereby collaborate with illegitimately violent power), or will we make our voices heard (and be counted among those who did what they could to stop that violence), even if speaking poses a risk? The current Jewish critique of Israel is often portrayed as insensitive to Jewish suffering, past as well as present, yet its ethic is based on the experience of suffering, in order that suffering might stop.

Summers uses the 'anti-semitic' charge to quell public criticism of Israel, even as he explicitly distances himself from the overt operations of censorship. He writes, for instance, that 'the only antidote to dangerous ideas is strong alternatives vigorously advocated.' But how does one vigorously advocate the idea that the Israeli occupation is brutal and wrong, and Palestinian self-determination a necessary good, if the voicing of those views calls down the charge of anti-semitism?

To understand Summers's claim, we have to be able to conceive of an effective anti-semitism, one that pertains to certain speech acts. Either it follows on certain utterances, or it structures them, even if that is not the conscious intention of those making them. His view assumes that such utterances will be taken by others as anti-semitic, or received within a given context as anti-semitic. So we have to ask what context Summers has in mind when he makes his claim; in what context is it the case that any criticism of Israel will be taken to be anti-semitic?

It may be that what Summers was effectively saying is that the only way a criticism of Israel can be heard is through a certain acoustic frame, such that the criticism, whether it is of the West Bank settlements, the closing of Birzeit and Bethlehem University, the demolition of homes in Ramallah or Jenin, or the killing of numerous children and civilians, can only be interpreted as showing hatred for Jews. We are asked to conjure a listener who attributes an intention to the speaker: so-and-so has made a public statement against the Israeli occupation, and this must mean that so-and-so hates Jews or is willing to fuel those who do. The criticism is thus given a hidden meaning, one that is at odds with its explicit claim. The criticism of Israel is nothing more than a cloak for that hatred, or a cover for a call for discriminatory action against Jews. In other words, the only way to understand effective anti-semitism is to presuppose intentional anti-semitism; the effective anti-semitism of any criticism turns out to reside in the intention of the speaker as retrospectively attributed by the listener.

It may be that Summers has something else in mind; namely, that the criticism will be exploited by those who want to see not only the destruction of Israel but the degradation or devaluation of Jewish people in general. There is always that risk, but to claim that such criticism of Israel can be taken only as criticism of Jews is to attribute to that particular interpretation the power to monopolise the field of reception. The argument against letting criticism of Israel into the public sphere would be that it gives fodder to those with anti-semitic intentions, who will successfully co-opt the criticism. Here again, a statement can become effectively anti-semitic only if there is, somewhere, an intention to use it for anti-semitic purposes. Indeed, even if one believed that criticisms of Israel are by and large heard as anti-semitic (by Jews, anti-semites, or people who could be described as neither), it would become the responsibility of all of us to change the conditions of reception so that the public might begin to distinguish between criticism of Israel and a hatred of Jews.

Summers made his statement as president of an institution which is a symbol of academic prestige in the United States, and although he claimed he was speaking not as president of the university but as a 'member of our community', his speech carried weight in the press precisely because he was exercising the authority of his office. If the president of Harvard is letting the public know that he will take any criticism of Israel to be effectively anti-semitic, then he is saying that public discourse itself ought to be so constrained that such statements are not uttered, and that those who utter them will be understood as engaging in anti-semitic speech, even hate speech.

Here, it is important to distinguish between anti-semitic speech which, say, produces a hostile and threatening environment for Jewish students - racist speech which any university administrator would be obliged to oppose and regulate - and speech which makes a student uncomfortable because it opposes a particular state or set of state policies that he or she may defend. The latter is a political debate, and if we say that the case of Israel is different, that any criticism of it is considered as an attack on Israelis, or Jews in general, then we have singled out this political allegiance from all other allegiances that are open to public debate. We have engaged in the most outrageous form of 'effective' censorship.

The point is not only that Summers's distinction between effective and intentional anti-semitism cannot hold, but that the way it collapses in his formulation is precisely what produces the conditions under which certain public views are taken to be hate speech, in effect if not in intent. Summers didn't say that anything that Israel does in the name of self-defence is legitimate and ought not to be questioned. I don't know whether he approves of all Israeli policies, but let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that he doesn't. And I don't know whether he has views about, for instance, the destruction of homes and the killings of children in Jenin which attracted the attention of the United Nations last year but was not investigated as a human rights violation because Israel refused to open its borders to an investigative team. If he objects to those actions, and they are among the 'foreign policy' issues he believes ought to be 'vigorously challenged', he would be compelled, under his formulation, not to voice his disapproval, believing, as he does, that that would be construed, effectively, as anti-semitism. And if he thinks it possible to voice disapproval, he hasn't shown us how to do it in such a way as to avert the allegation of anti-semitism.

Summers's logic suggests that certain actions of the Israeli state must be allowed to go on unimpeded by public protest, for fear that any protest would be tantamount to anti-semitism, if not anti-semitism itself. Now, all forms of anti-semitism must be opposed, but we have here a set of serious confusions about the forms anti-semitism takes. Indeed, if the charge of anti-semitism is used to defend Israel at all costs, then its power when used against those who do discriminate against Jews - who do violence to synagogues in Europe, wave Nazi flags or support anti-semitic organisations - is radically diluted. Many critics of Israel now dismiss all claims of anti-semitism as 'trumped up', having been exposed to their use as a way of censoring political speech.

Summers doesn't tell us why divestment campaigns or other forms of public protest are anti-semitic. According to him, some forms of anti-semitism are characterised as such retroactively, which means that nothing should be said or done that will then be taken to be anti-semitic by others. But what if those others are wrong? If we take one form of anti-semitism to be defined retroactively, what is left of the possibility of legitimate protest against a state, either by its own population or anyone else? If we say that every time the word 'Israel' is spoken, the speaker really means 'Jews', then we have foreclosed in advance the possibility that the speaker really means 'Israel'. If, on the other hand, we distinguish between anti-semitism and forms of protest against the Israeli state (or right-wing settlers who sometimes act independently of the state), acknowledging that sometimes they do, disturbingly, work together, then we stand a chance of understanding that world Jewry does not see itself as one with Israel in its present form and practice, and that Jews in Israel do not necessarily see themselves as one with the state. In other words, the possibility of a substantive Jewish peace movement depends on our observing a productive and critical distance from the state of Israel (which can be coupled with a profound investment in its future course).

Summers's view seems to imply that criticism of Israel is 'anti-Israel' in the sense that it is understood to challenge the right of Israel to exist. A criticism of Israel is not the same, however, as a challenge to Israel's existence, even if there are conditions under which it would be possible to say that one leads to the other. A challenge to the right of Israel to exist can be construed as a challenge to the existence of the Jewish people only if one believes that Israel alone keeps the Jewish people alive or that all Jews invest their sense of perpetuity in the state of Israel in its current or traditional forms. One could argue, however, that those polities which safeguard the right to criticise them stand a better chance of surviving than those that don't. For a criticism of Israel to be taken as a challenge to the survival of the Jews, we would have to assume not only that 'Israel' cannot change in response to legitimate criticism, but that a more radically democratic Israel would be bad for Jews. This would be to suppose that criticism is not a Jewish value, which clearly flies in the face not only of long traditions of Talmudic disputation, but of all the religious and cultural sources that have been part of Jewish life for centuries.

What are we to make of Jews who disidentify with Israel or, at least, with the Israeli state? Or Jews who identify with Israel, but do not condone some of its practices? There is a wide range here: those who are silently ambivalent about the way Israel handles itself; those who only half articulate their doubts about the occupation; those who are strongly opposed to the occupation, but within a Zionist framework; those who would like to see Zionism rethought or, indeed, abandoned. Jews may hold any of these opinions, but voice them only to their family, or only to their friends; or voice them in public but then face an angry reception at home. Given this Jewish ambivalence, ought we not to be suspicious of any effort to equate Jews with Israel? The argument that all Jews have a heartfelt investment in the state of Israel is untrue. Some have a heartfelt investment in corned beef sandwiches or in certain Talmudic tales, religious rituals and liturgy, in memories of their grandmother, the taste of borscht or the sounds of the old Yiddish theatre. Others have an investment in historical and cultural archives from Eastern Europe or from the Holocaust, or in forms of labour activism, civil rights struggles and social justice that are thoroughly secular, and exist in relative independence from the question of Israel.

What do we make of Jews such as myself, who are emotionally invested in the state of Israel, critical of its current form, and call for a radical restructuring of its economic and juridical basis precisely because we are invested in it? It is always possible to say that such Jews have turned against their own Jewishness. But what if one criticises Israel in the name of one's Jewishness, in the name of justice, precisely because such criticisms seem 'best for the Jews'? Why wouldn't it always be 'best for the Jews' to embrace forms of democracy that extend what is 'best' to everyone, Jewish or not? I signed a petition framed in these terms, an 'Open Letter from American Jews', in which 3700 American Jews opposed the Israeli occupation, though in my view it was not nearly strong enough: it did not call for the end of Zionism, or for the reallocation of arable land, for rethinking the Jewish right of return or for the fair distribution of water and medicine to Palestinians, and it did not call for the reorganisation of the Israeli state on a more radically egalitarian basis. It was, nevertheless, an overt criticism of Israel.

Many of those who signed that petition will have felt what might reasonably be called heartache at taking a public stand against Israeli policy, at the thought that Israel, by subjecting 3.5 million Palestinians to military occupation, represents the Jews in a way that these petitioners find not only objectionable, but terrible to endure, as Jews; it is as Jews that they assert their disidentification with that policy, that they seek to widen the rift between the state of Israel and the Jewish people in order to produce an alternative vision of the future. The petitioners exercised a democratic right to voice criticism, and sought to get economic pressure put on Israel by the US and other countries, to implement rights for Palestinians otherwise deprived of basic conditions of self-determination, to end the occupation, to secure an independent Palestinian state or to re-establish the basis of the Israeli state without regard to religion so that Jewishness would constitute only one cultural and religious reality, and be protected by the same laws that protect the rights of others.

Identifying Israel with Jewry obscures the existence of the small but important post-Zionist movement in Israel, including the philosophers Adi Ophir and Anat Biletzki, the sociologist Uri Ram, the professor of theatre Avraham Oz and the poet Yitzhak Laor. Are we to say that Israelis who are critical of Israeli policy are self-hating Jews, or insensitive to the ways in which criticism may fan the flames of anti-semitism? What of the new Brit Tzedek organisation in the US, numbering close to 20,000 members at the last count, which seeks to offer a critical alternative to the American Israel Political Action Committee, opposing the current occupation and working for a two-state solution? What of Jewish Voices for Peace, Jews against the Occupation, Jews for Peace in the Middle East, the Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, Tikkun, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Women in Black or, indeed, Neve Shalom-Wahat al-Salam, the only village collectively governed by both Jews and Arabs in the state of Israel? What do we make of B'Tselem, the Israeli organisation that monitors human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, or Gush Shalom, an Israeli organisation opposing the occupation, or Yesh Gvul, which represents the Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories? And what of Ta'ayush, a Jewish-Arab coalition against policies that lead to isolation, poor medical care, house arrest, the destruction of educational institutions, and lack of water and food for Palestinians?

It will not do to equate Jews with Zionists or Jewishness with Zionism. There were debates among Jews throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries as to whether Zionism ought to become the basis of a state, whether the Jews had any right to lay claim to land inhabited by Palestinians for centuries, and as to the future for a Jewish political project based on a violent expropriation of land. There were those who sought to make Zionism compatible with peaceful co-existence with Arabs, and those who used it as an excuse for military aggression, and continue to do so. There were those who thought, and still think, that Zionism is not a legitimate basis for a democratic state in a situation where a diverse population must be assumed to practise different religions, and that no group ought to be excluded from any right accorded to citizens in general on the basis of their ethnic or religious views. And there are those who maintain that the violent appropriation of Palestinian land, and the dislocation of 700,000 Palestinians, was an unsuitable foundation on which to build a state. Yet Israel is now repeating its founding gesture in the containment and dehumanisation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Indeed, the wall now being built threatens to leave 95,000 Palestinians homeless. These are questions about Zionism that should and must be asked in a public domain, and universities are surely one place where we might expect critical reflections on Zionism to take place. Instead, we are being asked, by Summers and others, to treat any critical approach to Zionism as effective anti-semitism and, hence, to rule it out as a topic for legitimate disagreement.

Many important distinctions are elided by the mainstream press when it assumes that there are only two possible positions on the Middle East, the 'pro-Israel' and the 'pro-Palestinian'. The assumption is that these are discrete views, internally homogeneous, non-overlapping, that if one is 'pro-Israel' then anything Israel does is all right, or if 'pro-Palestinian' then anything Palestinians do is all right. But few people's political views occupy such extremes. One can, for instance, be in favour of Palestinian self-determination, but condemn suicide bombings, and find others who share both those views but differ on the form self-determination ought to take. One can be in favour of Israel's right to exist, but still ask what is the most legitimate and democratic form that existence ought to take. If one questions the present form, is one anti-Israel? If one holds out for a truly democratic Israel-Palestine, is one anti-Israel? Or is one trying to find a better form for this polity, one that may well involve any number of possibilities: a revised version of Zionism, a post-Zionist Israel, a self-determining Palestine, or an amalgamation of Israel into a greater Israel-Palestine where all racially and religiously based qualifications on rights and entitlements would be eliminated?

What is ironic is that in equating Zionism with Jewishness, Summers is adopting the very tactic favoured by anti-semites. At the time of his speech, I found myself on a listserv on which a number of individuals opposed to the current policies of the state of Israel, and sometimes to Zionism, started to engage in this same slippage, sometimes opposing what they called 'Zionism' and at other times what they called 'Jewish' interests. Whenever this occurred, there were objections, and several people withdrew from the group. Mona Baker, the academic in Manchester who dismissed two Israeli colleagues from the board of her academic journal in an effort to boycott Israeli institutions, argued that there was no way to distinguish between individuals and institutions. In dismissing these individuals, she claimed, she was treating them as emblematic of the Israeli state, since they were citizens of that country. But citizens are not the same as states: the very possibility of significant dissent depends on recognising the difference between them. Baker's response to subsequent criticism was to submit e-mails to the 'academicsforjustice' listserv complaining about 'Jewish' newspapers and labelling as 'pressure' the opportunity that some of these newspapers offered to discuss the issue in print with the colleagues she had dismissed. She refused to do this and seemed now to be fighting against 'Jews', identified as a lobby that pressures people, a lobby that had put pressure on her. The criticism that I made of Summers's view thus applies to Baker as well: it is one thing to oppose Israel in its current form and practices or, indeed, to have critical questions about Zionism itself, but it is quite another to oppose 'Jews' or assume that all 'Jews' have the same view, that they are all in favour of Israel, identified with Israel or represented by Israel. Oddly, and painfully, it has to be said that on this point Mona Baker and Lawrence Summers agree: Jews are the same as Israel. In the one instance, the premise works in the service of an argument against anti-semitism; in the second, it works as the effect of anti-semitism itself. One aspect of anti-semitism or, indeed, of any form of racism is that an entire people is falsely and summarily equated with a particular position, view or disposition. To say that all Jews hold a given view on Israel or are adequately represented by Israel or, conversely, that the acts of Israel, the state, adequately stand for the acts of all Jews, is to conflate Jews with Israel and, thereby, to commit an anti-semitic reduction of Jewishness.

In holding out for a distinction to be made between Israel and Jews, I am calling for a space for dissent for Jews, and non-Jews, who have criticisms of Israel to articulate; but I am also opposing anti-semitic reductions of Jewishness to Israeli interests. The 'Jew' is no more defined by Israel than by anti-semitism. The 'Jew' exceeds both determinations, and is to be found, substantively, as a historically and culturally changing identity that takes no single form and has no single telos. Once the distinction is made, discussion of both Zionism and anti-semitism can begin, since it will be as important to understand the legacy of Zionism and to debate its future as to oppose anti-semitism wherever we find it.

What is needed is a public space in which such issues might be thoughtfully debated, and to prevent that space being defined by certain kinds of exclusion and censorship. If one can't voice an objection to violence done by Israel without attracting a charge of anti-semitism, then that charge works to circumscribe the publicly acceptable domain of speech, and to immunise Israeli violence against criticism. One is threatened with the label 'anti-semitic' in the same way that one is threatened with being called a 'traitor' if one opposes the most recent US war. Such threats aim to define the limits of the public sphere by setting limits on the speakable. The world of public discourse would then be one from which critical perspectives would be excluded, and the public would come to understand itself as one that does not speak out in the face of obvious and illegitimate violence.

Judith Butler's book of essays, Precarious Life: Politics, Violence, Mourning, about culture and politics after 11 September, is due from Verso in the spring. She is Maxine Elliot Professor in Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California at Berkeley.

add your comments


 

DEAR JUDITH Latin
by GOLDBERG 10:34pm Sun Aug 17 '03

print comment

..DEAR LADY...IF IT WERE TO GO YOUR WAY, ISRAEL WOULD BE GONE IN FIVE YEARS. YOU AND THE LIKES OF YOU JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND THERE IS A WAR GOING ON, THE OTHER SIDE HAS NOTHING BUT TIME AND PEOPLE TO WASTE,OUR SIDE HAS NO TIME AND PRECIOUS FEW PEOPLE,ESPECIALY WHEN ONE SUBTRACTS THE FRUMMERS ON ONE SIDE AND THE SOON TO BE GONE JEWS LIKE YOURSELF ON THE OTHER SIDE.SO PLEASE TAKE YOUR BERKELEY TAINTED BULLSHIT ADVICE AND STICK IT WHERE THE SUN NEVER SHINES.

add your comments


 

Nonsense Latin
by jeffb 6:31am Mon Aug 18 '03

print comment

The word Jewish is the greek form of the word Judean (i.e. the Jews are the people of Judea). Israel is to Judea as modern Egypt is to ancient Egypt. Judaism is the tribal beliefs of the citizens of Judea. Criticism of Israel is criticism of the Jewish polity. Criticism of Israel's right to exist is criticism of Judiasm's right to exist in a meaningful forum.

People who have no obvious connection to Israel and Jews yet take an unnatural interest in its politics are generally motivated by irrational attitudes towards Jews which are "termed anti-semitic". There are dozens of governments in the world fighting with ethnic minorities inside their territory. It doesn't attract nearly the attention that Israel attracts. Its this degree of attention that is anti-semitic much more than the content. Most people despise the government of Zimbabwe they don't however: organize boycotts, get involved in debates, attend marches, exclude the Zimbabwian people from cultural events, seek to impose sanctions.....They don't think about Zimbabwe much at all. That's the proper level of attention Israel should get from non Jews and non Palestinians.

add your comments


 

Proper level of attention Latin
by Eyal 11:50am Mon Aug 18 '03

print comment

Ah yes, the proper level of attention is the level that lets us get on with our dirtywork in peace.

add your comments


 

How to Reduce Anti Semitism Latin
by Henry Makow Ph.D. 1:29pm Mon Aug 18 '03

print comment

http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/webcast/display.php3?article_id=64139

www.indymedia.org.il/imc/webcast/display...

add your comments


 

gross misjustice Latin
by linus 7:54pm Mon Aug 18 '03

print comment

I developed an interst in Israel, Jews and Muslims post 9/11. As a person pre 9/11 that had some kind of sympathy for the Israeli's, now, due really to the dissemination of unbiased info across the net. I find myself siding with the with palestinans. Regardless of religous grounds or right to whatever....I get the impression that more and more people are undergoing this shift in feelings (those people that give a monkeys that is). Everydaypeople in the UK, in London esp live next door to people that look like terrorist, but know them on a personal level. I reckon if one of these people were to walk in a shopping mall in NY the mall would be empty in a few seconds. The point being that familiarity makes you (me)look a bit deeper, & see that palestinans have no choice, something that Mrs.Blair once suggested. So my feelings can't be too far off the mark. I am a member of the public and this is my opion, so in that context my point is valid.

add your comments


 

linus Latin
by goldberg 10:15pm Mon Aug 18 '03

print comment

..try to keep an open mind, read some books about the history over the last 100 years,try to understand that the jews are outnumbered 1 billion moslems to 12 million and subtracting the black hatters and the soon to be gone lefty turncoats you have maybe 7-8 million left.then add millions of anti-semites amongst the rest of the world, the brown and yellow and the black africans....well you have it.i am sorry to have you join the throngs against us.but you know what, were gonna keep up the fight to survive, we have done it for the last 4000 years, and if you want to do us in like the rest. so be it.

add your comments


 

Reality Check Latin
by AKhalil 4:33am Sat Aug 23 '03

print comment

I am tired of this bullshit about the Jewish ties to Judea and the historical rights they have to Palestine. First, you, who claim such rights, need to make up your minds if you are a people or a religion. You cannot be both. If you are a people, then you need to go back to where you came from. If you are Russian, go back to Russia. If you are German go back make the rest of the Germans, the "christian" ones, pay for what they did to you. Most of you who claim the eternal bond with the land do not even look Middle Eastern. You are either blonde with blue eyes, or some other kind of a degenerate breed (look at Sharon, he looks as if he came out of a horror movie). If you can prove that you are of Middle Eastern origin, then you should be welcome to go to the country of your origin. Some of you are legitimate and I support your right to live in the Middle East. By the same token, a person like Sharon should go back to the Ukraine, period.

Now if you are a religion, then you cannot claim a land for any reason. This bullshit about God promising it to Abraham might work on some idiots in the Christian world, but no where else. If you could provide an authenticated and registered deed for the land from God, thewn maybe we could talk. Otherwise, God the sent his Archangel to me yesterday and He promised me Europe, Half of Asia and, specifically, your money, house, spouse and children. If you would gladly surrender these to me, then I would have my God talk to your God, and Maybe we would settle the question of Palestine.

Shalom

add your comments


 

Reality Check Latin
by AKhalil 4:39am Sat Aug 23 '03

print comment

I am tired of this bullshit about the Jewish ties to Judea and the historical rights they have to Palestine. First, you, who claim such rights, need to make up your minds if you are a people or a religion. You cannot be both. If you are a people, then you need to go back to where you came from. If you are Russian, go back to Russia. If you are German go back make the rest of the Germans, the "christian" ones, pay for what they did to you. Most of you who claim the eternal bond with the land do not even look Middle Eastern. You are either blonde with blue eyes, or some other kind of a degenerate breed (look at Sharon, he looks as if he came out of a horror movie). If you can prove that you are of Middle Eastern origin, then you should be welcome to go to the country of your origin. Some of you are legitimate and I support your right to live in the Middle East. By the same token, a person like Sharon should go back to the Ukraine, period.

Now if you are a religion, then you cannot claim a land for any reason. This bullshit about God promising it to Abraham might work on some idiots in the Christian world, but no where else. If you could provide an authenticated and registered deed for the land from God, thewn maybe we could talk. Otherwise, God the sent his Archangel to me yesterday and He promised me Europe, Half of Asia and, specifically, your money, house, spouse and children. If you would gladly surrender these to me, then I would have my God talk to your God, and Maybe we would settle the question of Palestine.

Shalom

add your comments


 

You are incorrect Latin
by alex 10:33am Tue Aug 26 '03

print comment

there is a lot of protests against Zimbabwe(http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_777982.html?menu=)
however,i agree with you that sometimes there are more protests against Israel.i think it's mainly because it's been long supported by USA,military,economically and politically against the public opinion of the international community.

add your comments


 

Jews and Judaism Latin
by jeffb 4:09pm Wed Aug 27 '03

print comment

am tired of this bullshit about the Jewish ties to Judea and
the historical rights they have to Palestine. First, you,
who claim such rights, need to make up your minds if you are
a people or a religion.

Its pretty simple. Judains (Jews) are a tribal people whose tribal lands are Judea. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish tribe.

add your comments


 

You are incorrect Latin
by jeffb 4:12pm Wed Aug 27 '03

print comment

Read your own article about the protest "at one point police outnumbered protesters - Mr Tatchell said: 'Our intention was to have a small, symbolic protest.'".

Now contrast that with European protests against Israel.

add your comments


 

Democracy Hebrew
by Demos 7:19am Thu Aug 28 '03

print comment

The issue is simple. Democracy in the Middle East.
A secular state, constitution. No theocracy.
Freedom for people who born there. Human Rights
to them, to go, to come, to stablish, to vote. No
differences between ethnicities, religions, or
peoples who were born there. One man, one vote.
Legality. No Apartheid, no Walls, there is no
matter of nations or demography. Is about
democracy and basic human rights. A State of
their own citizens, not a ethnic state. A secular
and democratic state.

add your comments


 

To Demo, about "Democracy" Latin
by AKhalil 7:04pm Thu Aug 28 '03

print comment

Thank God, Ram, Budha, or whatever that there are pepole like you left. I do hope that you are Jewish and from Israel to boot, because then there might be hope still for a solution to the conflict.

add your comments


 

RE: Hebrew
by Demos 7:43am Fri Aug 29 '03

print comment

I am not Jewish, and I do not live in the Middle
East. I am
not very optimistic about the next future there,
but as Gramsci said... "pesimism of
intellligence, optimism of will". I believe in
the palestinian people as well as the israeli and
jewish people, and international volunteers who
resist with heroism, and fight daily, against
occupation, racism, apartheid, fundamentalism and
the militarization of our societies, and expect
that they could work close each other, because
the enemy is very powerful.

add your comments


 

demos Latin
by goldberg 12:03am Sat Aug 30 '03

print comment

...you got it wrong it is a war ,it is them or us,do you think for a minute if the arabs won. there would be one jew left alive in israel in the aftermath. hell they would even kill those peacenik jews who would have helped them win.g-d forbid.

add your comments


 

hmmm Hebrew
by Shirl 4:14am Sat Aug 30 '03

print comment

Reading articles like Judith Butler's make me feel
pride as a Jew. There was always an impressive,
one might say, variety of opinions concerning
Israel, Judaism, Zionism etc. among Jews. She
expressed her opinions very carefully, although
her views might be judged as extreme to others.
Something however, somewhat troubled me. As one
mentioned above, Criticism of Israel is viewed as
Anti-Semitism because there is so much of it, it
seems quite unbalanced, it is as if Israel wins a
bit too much attention, most of it is in negative
forms. Now, whether this criticism is expressed
correctly and in the right amounts, is a matter
of opinion.
At times it seems that having about one third of
the UN'S resultions concern( and most condemn)
Israeli policies and its existence, give the
impression of a "UN" that is a bit overly
obssessed with the 9-mile-wide Israel. One can
say, it may be pressure from oil seeking
countries, and countries that have that oil.
Sadly, our world is still addicted to oil, but of
course that is not a good enough excuse, but in
my opinion it is a part of the function.
Now to my point, somwhere in Butler's article I
have expected to read something about the PLO's
policies, and how the Arab attitude towards
Israel'd "better" change, if they actually want
peace. As much as she appears to seek peace, and
thinks the best way is by criticizing Zionism (
although I dont think she can define it
accurately) and Israeli policies, she oughta
understand that it takes both sides.
I truly believe that Israelis want peace, they do
not seek extra land, they do not wish to see
others suffer, and I think an excellent example
of the above is the list of organizations created
by Israelis themselves.
I just wonder, how come you don't get to see any
organizations such as that, calling to bring to a
halt the preaching of hate against Jews, the
western world, Israel, etc., inside the Arab
regimes, or the PLO itself. It's quite worrisome,
to see that even Palestinians themselves don't
seem to care about democracy, freedom of speech (
other than Israeli bashing),nor educating their
children about peace, and respect towards other
religions and ethnicities. In fact the Arab
society doesn't even follow what it preaches.
I am waiting for the day, where the world will
scream...not only for the democracy they view as
nonexistent in Israeli, but the true lack of
democracy that exists in Arab/Muslim regimes, and
some other parts of the world.
I hope that we'll manage to acheive true peace,
yet I doubt it is getting near. I don't think the
Arab world is ready to accept Israel in the ME,
be it 1967 borders, or even 1948, quite frankly
it now seems to me they wouldnt want it to exist
anywhere, but what do I know.
It would be nice to see, people who claim to
really care about peace, to not only criticize
Israel's "aggressive" policies, and not only
disapprove of suicide bombings from the
Palestinian side, but to shout against the
extreme lack of democracy that exists among the
Palestinians (and among Arabs in general), to
yell out against their fanatical preaching of
hatred against you know who. It astounds me to
see that Judith, among other "peace" activists,
hardly even mentions that.Do they expect to
convince anyone of their rightness, by simply
criticizing Israel's policies ( which criticizes
Israelis in general) and Palestinian suicide
bombers( which are conveyed as hopeless
INDIVIDUALS who dont really wanna go up to heaven
and mess with them virgins, but merely want to
forward a message....right)? and more
importantly, do they really think it is going to
get them anywhere?
cuz meanwhile, I dont see anything concerning
that conflict changing for the better, in fact it
gets worse and worse...

May there will be peace on Israel and the rest of
the world. Amen!

add your comments


 

hmmm and some more hmmm's Latin
by AKhalil 5:52am Sat Aug 30 '03

print comment

Yu wrote:
"I just wonder, how come you don't get to see any
organizations such as that, calling to bring to a
halt the preaching of hate against Jews, the
western world, Israel, etc., inside the Arab
regimes, or the PLO itself. It's quite worrisome,
to see that even Palestinians themselves don't
seem to care about democracy, freedom of speech (
other than Israeli bashing),nor educating their
children about peace, and respect towards other
religions and ethnicities. In fact the Arab
society doesn't even follow what it preaches.
I am waiting for the day, where the world will
scream...not only for the democracy they view as
nonexistent in Israeli, but the true lack of
democracy that exists in Arab/Muslim regimes, and
some other parts of the world."

First, it is a pointless statement in that it is air headed. The ARAB WORLD as you are fond of saying is 330-340 millions. To generalize about in the negative is idiotic and racist. Second, in the Arab world, contrary to your propaganda, the Arab regeims themselves are by policy and aspirations pro-Western. Anyone who says or thinks otherwise is either ignorant or a war mongering idiot. Now, in the ARAB WORLD, and that is a big world geographically too, there is no need for organizations calling for openness to the West and what this entails politically and economically, but quite the opposite. It is actually part of the rage in these societies that their governments have sold out to the West and to the economic and millitary powers for the last 200 years. Thus the "organizations" that develop in these countries are actually to express the societal reservations about the Westernization and the pace and magnitude of accepatable change. You of course pick on their complaints and try to convince the world that this is either the states' or the universal "Arab/Muslim" (you know, the evil ones) policy. It is not. The Saudi regeime is in trouble internally because they are pro-American. So are the Gulf states, who are vitually western protectorates. Iraq was an ally until the bastard, Saddam, crossed his limits and outlived his need. North Africa is virtually a western free zone. Hell, they even have nude camps in Tunis. What more freedome do you want? Lebanon, of course, is an extension of France in everything, even in their language. Syria is the only hold out, and up to a point. They are holding out because, frankly, no one cares about buying them off. They are too convenient for Israel in sounding the drums of war (a good excuse), and they are too poor and un-important to mater much to the rest of the world. In other words, they are marginal with nothing to offer. As for relations with Israel itself, we know that the Arab regeims have sold out long time ago. They all went to sleep when the British plans to give away Palestine became known. In 1948, the Arab states sent a massive multitude of 20,000 soldiers to stop, NOT Israel, but Jordan's King Abdullah from taking over the land allocated to the Palestinians in the 1947 partition plan. The only battle that occured on Jewish allocated land was by previous agreement between Jordan and Israel, in order to provide Jordan with the justification to annex the Palestinan portion without much objection from the Palestinans. It was thus a make belief battle. All the rest were ordered days later by uncle Ben Gorion when he saw an opprtunity to add more land to Israel, due to the pathetic state and performance of the Arab armies, and they all occured on the Palestinan allocated lands. Why did the Arabs lose these battles is up for votes, but at best it would be because the Arab states were still under foriegn occupation with no actuall standing or experienced armies, and, to put things in perspective, the Arab armies numbered a total of 20,000 poorly armed soldiers, while Israel, even at this early stage, had a well equiped army of 47,000). Since then, we go down hill. We hear of backdoor agreements between Arab leaders or governments and Israel. We know that the Great King Hussien of Jordan flew his own Helicopter to Israel to notify Golda and the Israeli establishment of Egypt and Syria's plan to launch the war of 1973. They discounted him, and Egypt and Syria were onto him anyway and gave him false information. Even Morocco and Mauritania had secret dealing with Israel. Thus, there was and still is no need for organizations to ask the state for openness to the West or accepting Israel. They already do. The only drawback is that they still have to conceil their "selling-out" in some rhetoric for local consuption by the un-educated masses.

Now, in Israel, it is quite the reverse. It is the policy of the state to demonize, abuse, maime and kill Arabs at all possible situations. It is the policy of the state to demoloish houses, detroy properties and even plow field and un-root trees on a daily basis. Is is the policy of the state to assassinate plotical leaders, internally and externally. It is the policy of state to maintain millitary superiority to enable it to strike at will at any part in the Arab world (and now boosting that it can strike anywhere in the world at large). It is the policy of the state to acquire weapons of mass destruction and it a known fact that they do possess these weapons (the only reason that they have not used on a mass scale yet is that, due to geography, if they do use them they will die too. But hey, who am I to complain). This has always been the case and it still is to the present. Thus, some good citizens of Israel would feel that enough is enough and that it is time for Israel to stop its racist and genocidal "policies." They are thus justified in forming organizations to put pressure on the zionist state to change and move towards the path of seeking a resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians.

As for the rest of your comments about Arabs and Muslims, do not generalize on such topics, because this is the basis of begotry. I also know enough about Judaism and Christianity, as well as many other world religions, and their history, to make you cry for being whatever you are.

Shalom

add your comments


 

Make me cry baby! Hebrew
by Shirl 12:23am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

Who said anything about westernization??? Did I
mention the ARAB WORLD is not modern enough???? I
was mentioning Democracy! Democracy! But hiding
behind the broad term "Westernization" is a great
try hun.
As you said, there are cries of the people in the
ARAB WORLD concerning the fast pace at which they
were exposed to the westernization that the
"western" world developed for so long, therefore
having the time and resources to get used to the
concept of democracy. Yet their leaders don't
listen Akhalil. Those leaders were NOT
democratically elected, therefore they do NOT
represent the wishes of their people. Trying to
convey that the ARAB WORLD which is quite huge as
u mentioned urself (and if you got any better
term pls notify me ASAP), NOT modern
elements...as I am sure you know Iran was and is
a perfect example, it had(s) an outstanding
potential, and its Shah wanted to westernize it
even though most people weren't ready for that,
that country lacked and still lacks democracy. Do
you view the Islamic regime of Iran as a happy
one? Are the people happy? Teheran is in the
worst shape ever....thanks to what? I wonder
:)...and the situation is consistent with the
rest of Israel's neighbours, people cannot
express their opinions...they can't wear what
they want in most places...they cannot say what
is really on their minds, they cannot speak out
against their leaders' abuse! And you are trying
to tell me that they are?! That is something you
cannot deny...plssssss
On the other hand, you have Israel ...where you
CAN speak out against your leaders, in fact you
can kick em the hell out as we did with both BB
and Barak...now whats going on with the
Jordanian parliament?...
Again, you surprised me, you said you are a
critic of the ARAB WORLD's policies....yet you
seem to make their leaders to be angels...pure
angels that wanted to help them poor
palestinians...now why the f* did they decide to
attack us from all fronts on the recreation eve
of Israel???? Were you there akhalil...who told
you dear uncle Ben Gurion sneakily decided to
attack the poor "20,000 arab warriors with no
suitable weapons"? Where did you read that? Mind
giving me the Titles of some of your favorite
books concerning that matter?
"Lebanon, of course, is an extension of France in
everything, even in their language." U
said....why should I care about their so called
European culture? Are you actually trying to
convince me that Lebanon is not controlled by
Syria? that syrian soldiers don't stop them at
check points( as my muslim Lebanese friends told
me!)? Besides that Lebanon is a great place ya
know, a terror nest for organizations such as the
RACIST Hezbullah....I mean it is so cool, you can
actually buy Israeli flags walking down the
streets....ONLY if you want to burn them that is.

You also said:"We know that the Great King
Hussien of Jordan flew his own Helicopter to
Israel to notify Golda and the Israeli
establishment of Egypt and Syria's plan to launch
the war of 1973. They discounted him, and Egypt
and Syria were onto him anyway and gave him false
information. Even Morocco and Mauritania had
secret dealing with Israel."
Now, who is "we" Akhalil habibi?...And oh were u
there on the helicopter? or is that what your
father told you about our Great King Husain, who
was put in Jordan by them great Brits who by the
way reorganized the whole ME so nicely eh? And
please don't sell me any goodies about Morocco's
dealings...unless you get substantial proof.

" Now, in Israel, it is quite the reverse. It is
the policy of the state to demonize, abuse, maime
and kill Arabs at all possible situations."
Who told you that? Got any proof for those
terrible accusations? And if those accusations
are true, how are they reverse from the ARAB
WORLD policies....dang, I do like using that
term.

"Is (it) is the policy of the state to
assassinate plotical leaders..."
We haven't killed any political leaders...but you
are starting to give me ideas about our oh so
democratic peacelovin and just arafat ( you know,
that nouveau riche hunk)...Id better tell my
friends in the Mossad about it...now thats how
ridiculous u sound.
We kill terrorists, if you consider terrorists
like late Abu Shanhab, as political leaders,
people whose main aim is to delete Israel and its
Jewish residents, then you are the racist and oh
so ignorant one habibi.
Another thing you wrote was:
"They are thus justified in forming organizations
to put pressure on the zionist state to change
and move towards the path of seeking a resolution
to its conflict with the Palestinians"
Firstly, I would like u to define "Zionism".
Secondly, what makes you think that the current
parties in the Israeli kenesset cannot do that
job on their own, you have HADASH, BALLAD,
MERETZ, THE UNITED ARAB LIST the passionate
secularization supporter SHINUI etc. This is a
list I take great pride in, although I dont agree
with their current political agendas and tactics,
it shows how democratic the Israeli society is,
how every voice can be heard, ANY VOICE.
Something you cannot say about the majority of
the ARAB WORLD (G-d I love using that
term!)..enlighten me if Im wrong( substantial
facts only please)...or more specifally Israel's
neighbours.

Well, I will be waiting for your response. And
perhaps you could also explain to me that whole
issue of the school books that are oh so popular
among the arab school children( maybe because
there is only one source to choose from?) ...you
know, those same books that teach the little kids
who are truly innocent, how killing filthy jews
that hide behind talking trees is a good
thing...or a "mitzvah" as we say, or how "the
Arabs" won this or that war...that's gonna be an
interesting one..unless ur gonna claim that it's
another Zionist propoganda...or perhaps King
Jordan's scheme to brainwash them little kids
with his helicopter.

May there will be peace upon little Israel and
the rest of the nations.

P.S. please tell me how do I sound racist in my
words, I do not wish to generalize about anyone,
I do not think "all Arabs or (for that matter)
Muslims are BAD", only stupid ignorant people
would make such generalization about an entire
people or religion, in fact I have many Arab
friends, and I admire their warmness and
beautiful culture, Unlike some others, I will
never judge anyone by his government, not to
mention that I dont even think "the Arabs" are
represented fully by theirs....oh and one more
thing...what are those things about Judaism that
are gonna make me cry....I could use a good
cry...can't wait!

add your comments


 

Make me cry baby! Hebrew
by Shirl 12:24am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

Who said anything about westernization??? Did I
mention the ARAB WORLD is not modern enough???? I
was mentioning Democracy! Democracy! But hiding
behind the broad term "Westernization" is a great
try hun.
As you said, there are cries of the people in the
ARAB WORLD concerning the fast pace at which they
were exposed to the westernization that the
"western" world developed for so long, therefore
having the time and resources to get used to the
concept of democracy. Yet their leaders don't
listen Akhalil. Those leaders were NOT
democratically elected, therefore they do NOT
represent the wishes of their people. Trying to
convey that the ARAB WORLD which is quite huge as
u mentioned urself (and if you got any better
term pls notify me ASAP), NOT modern
elements...as I am sure you know Iran was and is
a perfect example, it had(s) an outstanding
potential, and its Shah wanted to westernize it
even though most people weren't ready for that,
that country lacked and still lacks democracy. Do
you view the Islamic regime of Iran as a happy
one? Are the people happy? Teheran is in the
worst shape ever....thanks to what? I wonder
:)...and the situation is consistent with the
rest of Israel's neighbours, people cannot
express their opinions...they can't wear what
they want in most places...they cannot say what
is really on their minds, they cannot speak out
against their leaders' abuse! And you are trying
to tell me that they are?! That is something you
cannot deny...plssssss
On the other hand, you have Israel ...where you
CAN speak out against your leaders, in fact you
can kick em the hell out as we did with both BB
and Barak...now whats going on with the
Jordanian parliament?...
Again, you surprised me, you said you are a
critic of the ARAB WORLD's policies....yet you
seem to make their leaders to be angels...pure
angels that wanted to help them poor
palestinians...now why the f* did they decide to
attack us from all fronts on the recreation eve
of Israel???? Were you there akhalil...who told
you dear uncle Ben Gurion sneakily decided to
attack the poor "20,000 arab warriors with no
suitable weapons"? Where did you read that? Mind
giving me the Titles of some of your favorite
books concerning that matter?
"Lebanon, of course, is an extension of France in
everything, even in their language." U
said....why should I care about their so called
European culture? Are you actually trying to
convince me that Lebanon is not controlled by
Syria? that syrian soldiers don't stop them at
check points( as my muslim Lebanese friends told
me!)? Besides that Lebanon is a great place ya
know, a terror nest for organizations such as the
RACIST Hezbullah....I mean it is so cool, you can
actually buy Israeli flags walking down the
streets....ONLY if you want to burn them that is.

You also said:"We know that the Great King
Hussien of Jordan flew his own Helicopter to
Israel to notify Golda and the Israeli
establishment of Egypt and Syria's plan to launch
the war of 1973. They discounted him, and Egypt
and Syria were onto him anyway and gave him false
information. Even Morocco and Mauritania had
secret dealing with Israel."
Now, who is "we" Akhalil habibi?...And oh were u
there on the helicopter? or is that what your
father told you about our Great King Husain, who
was put in Jordan by them great Brits who by the
way reorganized the whole ME so nicely eh? And
please don't sell me any goodies about Morocco's
dealings...unless you get substantial proof.

" Now, in Israel, it is quite the reverse. It is
the policy of the state to demonize, abuse, maime
and kill Arabs at all possible situations."
Who told you that? Got any proof for those
terrible accusations? And if those accusations
are true, how are they reverse from the ARAB
WORLD policies....dang, I do like using that
term.

"Is (it) is the policy of the state to
assassinate plotical leaders..."
We haven't killed any political leaders...but you
are starting to give me ideas about our oh so
democratic peacelovin and just arafat ( you know,
that nouveau riche hunk)...Id better tell my
friends in the Mossad about it...now thats how
ridiculous u sound.
We kill terrorists, if you consider terrorists
like late Abu Shanhab, as political leaders,
people whose main aim is to delete Israel and its
Jewish residents, then you are the racist and oh
so ignorant one habibi.
Another thing you wrote was:
"They are thus justified in forming organizations
to put pressure on the zionist state to change
and move towards the path of seeking a resolution
to its conflict with the Palestinians"
Firstly, I would like u to define "Zionism".
Secondly, what makes you think that the current
parties in the Israeli kenesset cannot do that
job on their own, you have HADASH, BALLAD,
MERETZ, THE UNITED ARAB LIST the passionate
secularization supporter SHINUI etc. This is a
list I take great pride in, although I dont agree
with their current political agendas and tactics,
it shows how democratic the Israeli society is,
how every voice can be heard, ANY VOICE.
Something you cannot say about the majority of
the ARAB WORLD (G-d I love using that
term!)..enlighten me if Im wrong( substantial
facts only please)...or more specifally Israel's
neighbours.

Well, I will be waiting for your response. And
perhaps you could also explain to me that whole
issue of the school books that are oh so popular
among the arab school children( maybe because
there is only one source to choose from?) ...you
know, those same books that teach the little kids
who are truly innocent, how killing filthy jews
that hide behind talking trees is a good
thing...or a "mitzvah" as we say, or how "the
Arabs" won this or that war...that's gonna be an
interesting one..unless ur gonna claim that it's
another Zionist propoganda...or perhaps King
Jordan's scheme to brainwash them little kids
with his helicopter.

May there will be peace upon little Israel and
the rest of the nations.

P.S. please tell me how do I sound racist in my
words, I do not wish to generalize about anyone,
I do not think "all Arabs or (for that matter)
Muslims are BAD", only stupid ignorant people
would make such generalization about an entire
people or religion, in fact I have many Arab
friends, and I admire their warmness and
beautiful culture, Unlike some others, I will
never judge anyone by his government, not to
mention that I dont even think "the Arabs" are
represented fully by theirs....oh and one more
thing...what are those things about Judaism that
are gonna make me cry....I could use a good
cry...can't wait!

add your comments


 

Zionism and Democratic regimes are equivalent Latin
by MLVE 3:09am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

"On the other hand, you have Israel ...where you
CAN speak out against your leaders"

as i recall it was not too long ago when an innocent manuever such as holding a sign critical of the military in public view landed one detained by the Zionist police forces.

What say you,"SHIRL" ,

add your comments


 

Youre a pack of contradictions shirl Latin
by with all due respect (none) 3:27am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

shirl: "... those same books that teach the little kids
who are truly innocent,,,"

speaking of books, the little innocent Palestinian kids that you are talking about are considered a threat by the Jewish militia who is currently active in censoring a childrens' book from being published because it's subject matter deals with the (explosive) matter of a Palestinian child living in the grim reality of the occupation.

Don't you think shirl, that a book of that nature should be deemed mandatory in every Israeli school so as to create an empathy on the part of the Israeli youth so by the time they are recruited by the army they won't be inclined to shoot at Arab children, but will be inclined to spare their precious lives and livelihood (farms, olive trees and the acres of citrus fruit)

add your comments


 

Democracy welcomes external and internal , Latin
by scrutiny and does not shun away its Critics: 3:54am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

By the way Shirl, the way in which you rush to defend the Zionist entity in light of Akhalil accusations only proves the intolerance Zionists have to critics and thus to the ideals of democracy.

add your comments


 

To shirl Latin
by with love/ 4:16am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

Shirl, you are defensive of Israel and its policies because you closely identify with the nation and view critics of it as critics of you.
This identity crisis has been carefully administered throughout your youth and later your adult life.
Through the education system you have assimilsted a collevtive attitude instead of an individual attitude per se.
the "all for one one for all" mantra is indeed good in theory (as is communism) but in practice it is anything but.
There are always rotten apples in the bunch who would take advantage of the ones will rush to their defense despite their crimes, because they are Jews...
Your war criminal leader, is found to have stolen billions of dollars in campaign donations yet his criminal behavior is brushed aside because he is a Jew and his vulnerability will translate to us, Jews.
He gets scottfree.

add your comments


 

Let the book be printed Latin
by for the sake of democracy 5:30am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

To block a book detailing the experiences of a Palestinian child living in the midst of an inhuman occupation would be tantamount to banning the book 'Ann Frank' from being read by school children around the world.
While one is mandatory reading in many schools the other book may not see the light of day.
To put it mildly, that is nothing but a travesty-

add your comments


 

what say U mistah? Hebrew
by you can only call me Shirl! 10:42am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

" as i recall it was not too long ago when an
innocent manuever such as holding a sign critical
of the military in public view landed one
detained by the Zionist police forces" I have
never heard of such a thing, but would love to be
enlightened :)

Ciao
Shirl

add your comments


 

what say U mistah? Hebrew
by you can only call me Shirl! 10:42am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

" as i recall it was not too long ago when an
innocent manuever such as holding a sign critical
of the military in public view landed one
detained by the Zionist police forces" I have
never heard of such a thing, but would love to be
enlightened :)

Ciao
Shirl

add your comments


 

to with all due respect (none) Hebrew
by Shirl 10:57am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

First of all I appreciate that kind respect
evaluation I deserve...U sure know how to
compliment a woman baby
Anyways...
I didn't get your point... :)
I was born and raised in Israel, and was NEVER
EVER taught to hate any person whose religion,
skin color or "race" is different than mine. In
fact My school regularly met with Arab groups.
I feel very bad for the innocent Arabs who truly
want to live peacefully, on their piece of land,
that is totally understandable, but naturally, I
feel I am attacked by most of them. Why should
Ipay for the fact that my grandparents decided to
move to Israel, what about me? Should I be kicked
outa the only home I know because those who u
consider to be the original residents ran away,
or sold their property? Not to mention that the
city I live in was legally bought by a Jewish
person, therefore it is completely legal for me
to live there, yet if a person who lives in this
city gets killed in a suicide bobing, who is
going to pay for that?
Arguing Israeli politics with someone who doesnt
live in Israel seems a bit pointless to me, I am
sorry, yes you do have a say in the matter, but
obvioulsy only to a certain extent.
I don't think you got the whole picture, and I
dont believe you want to, but that is your
choice, simply as it is mine to have my own
opinions, and as I mentioned before the variety
of opinions among Israelis is great, which a mon
avis validates almost each and one them.
Anyways, I didn't underatand ur response, were u
trying to justify those terrible school books?
and if yes, why?

Ciao.

add your comments


 

to the person who said I shun criticism Hebrew
by Shirl 11:03am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

Umm, as much as u would have liked me to shut up,I
just can't, sorry...
Now, how would u want me to respond to Akhalil's
accusations? I All I did was to ask him for more
information and backing up of his strong
statements?
Constructive Criticism is ALWAYS welcomed.
But urs seem to be the xact opposite. Of course U
can always try to prove me wrong, I learn best
from my mistakes.

add your comments


 

to with love Hebrew
by Shirl 11:53am Sun Aug 31 '03

print comment

I appreciate your kind response.

That matter which u discussed is not a simple
one. In fact I am losing my words as I try to
respond, how shall I respond to such a sensitive
matter?

Those complex issues, thoughts and theories
cannot be oversimplified and shaped as a formula,
they have many sides to it, and many variables
make up this function.

this is not about being united in opinion, this
is a matter of personal principles. To tell you
the truth, as an Israeli, I don't think that
taking any other stance would get me anywhere. If
I would have thought that Holding other views
concerning this sensitive matter would benefit
the long term security and economical goals of
Israeli citizens, then surely I would have
converted my current ones.
In fact, I held no views up until I had to move
to the USA for a short period of time, where I
have witnessed the constant obssession of people
and the media with Israel.
Now about Ariel Sharon( remind me why u dislike
him so much again?)...I dont know what makes u
think this issue is left unnoticed? Quite frankly
it is what the Israeli Media meddles with all day
long, what ever he's done he is going to pay for,
him being a jew has nothing to do with it. But
please remember that he is innocent until proven
guilty no matter what you think of him. and one
more thing, please do not employ one satndard
when it comes to Israel and one standrad when it
comes to the palestinians....if there is any
reason innocent people are dying, it is that.


add your comments


 

jerk fs Hebrew
by 3:49am Mon Sep 1 '03

print comment

hjo- and due tell, who do you worship...satan?

add your comments


 

..shirl Latin
by goldberg 2:46am Wed Sep 10 '03

print comment

...shirl......you are terrific....go girl

add your comments


 

Huh? Who Us? Anti-Semitic? Us? Latin
by Arthur Cass 12:57pm Wed Sep 10 '03

print comment


Say What? Anti-Semites? Who, us anti-Zionists? US? We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Heavens to Mergatroyd. Marx Forbid. We are humanists. Progressives. Peace lovers.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism and Israeli policies. The two have nothing to do with one another. Venus and Mars. Night and Day. Trust us.

Sure, we think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that the only children on earth whose being blown up is ok if it serves a good cause are Jewish children. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure we think that if Palestinians have legitimate grievances this entitles them to mass murder Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Naturally, we think that the only people on earth who should never be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense are the Jews. Jews should only resolve the aggression against them through capitulation, never through self-defense. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We only denounce racist apartheid in the one country in the Middle East that is NOT a racist apartheid country. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We refuse to acknowledge the Jews as a people, and think they are only a religion. We do not have an answer to how people who do NOT practice the Jewish religion can still be regarded as Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that all peoples have the right to self-determination, except Jews, and including even the make-pretend Palestinian “people”. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We hate it when people blame the victims, except of course when people blame the Jews for the jihads and terrorist campaigns against them. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand that the only country in the Middle East with free speech, free press, or free courts be destroyed. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We oppose military aggression, except when it is directed at Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We really understand suicide bombers who murder bus loads of Jewish children and we insist that their demands be met in full. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only conflict on earth that must be solved through dismembering one of the parties to that conflict is the one involving Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think that Jews have any human rights that need to be respected and especially not the right to ride a bus without being murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

There are Jewish leftist anti-Zionists and we consider this proof that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic. Not even the ones who cheer when Jews are mass murdered. These are the only Jews we think need be acknowledged or respected. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think murder proves how righteous and just the cause of the murderer is, except when it comes to murderers of Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think the Jews are entitled to their own state and must submit to being a minority in a Rwanda-style “bi-national state”, although no other state on earth, including the 22 Arab countries, should be similarly expected to be deprived of its sovereignty. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that Israelג€™s having a Jewish majority and a star on its flag makes it a racist apartheid state. We do not think any other country having an ethnic-religious majority or having crosses or crescents or “Allah Akbar” on its flag is racist or needs dismemberment. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the “mistreatment” of women in the only country of the Middle East in which they are not mistreated. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the “mistreatment” of minorities in the only country in the Middle East in which minorities are NOT brutally suppressed and mass murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand equal citizen rights, which is why the only country in the Middle East in need of extermination is the only one in which they exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We have no trouble with the fact that there is no freedom of religion in any Arab countries. But we are mad at hell at Israel for violating religious freedom, and never mind that we are never quite sure where or when it does so. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

So how can you possibly say we are anti-Semites? We are simply anti-Zionists. We seek peace and justice, thatג€™s all. And surely that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

add your comments


 

for Huh? Who Us? Anti-Semitic? Us? Latin
by Akhalil 7:55pm Wed Sep 10 '03

print comment

You have made your points very clearly. Now I make mine too. For everything you said, the underlying sense of superiority and of wanton begotry, the blatant lies and distortions of facts which you apparently truely believe, and for the sense of hopelssness one gets concerning the possibility of you and your likes ever understanding the gravity of the injustice which you have committed and still inflict on a whole nation, for all this, YES WE HATE YOU.

When you mend your ways and confess your guilt, only then, you can ask us if we like you or not. Till then, enjoy your killing of Palestinian kids away from us.

add your comments


 

..all this discourse Latin
by goldberg 10:50pm Fri Sep 12 '03

print comment

...these postings help confirm, the fact that the arabs can not accept isreal. period......therefore we must destroy them......or they will desrtroy us.....we must get on with it ...while we still have the power....we may not have the support of the U. S.A. forever...and we need that to balance the rest of the world.....so lets go.

add your comments


 

..all this discourse Latin
by AKhalil 2:22am Sat Sep 13 '03

print comment

I cannot read hebrew so I might not have filled in the fields above properly. Anyway.

Well, copperberg, which Arabs are you talking about? The Palestinians? you are already killing them as much and as fast as you can. The rest of the Arabs? we all know that you would if you could. Your delima is that you cannot, even with the help of USA. But you know, you must be careful about your rhetoric because if you say these thing long enough you would trump your other lie of how "little weak Israel is surrounded by the giant and powerful Arab States (we are supposed to laugh here)."

add your comments


 

hahahahahhahaha Hebrew
by shirl 12:54pm Mon Sep 15 '03

print comment

You cracked me up Arthur!!!!!!! well-done!

Now Akhalil, as I said b4, base ur statements
with some facts for a change.

oh and by the way, thank you borg.

add your comments


 

To Shirl, with Love Hebrew
by AKhalil 7:42pm Mon Sep 15 '03

print comment

Hi Shirl. I am sorry, but I am not in the
business of educating you or anyone else. We
discuss matters, I give you my information, you
give me yours. You check my information and I
check yours. If we disagree we talk about it
again. You want lessons, you go to school or
read on your own. I could give you some pointers
every once in a while, and you could give me some
pointers too, but I am not going to write you a
book everytime you want to weasle out of
something. It is a known tactic of sophestry and
circular arguments, for example, to require one
to negate a negative which you state, and I am
not falling for it.

Also, I've taken Copperberg as my current crusade
and I am dedicating most of my internet time to
making him/her/it get even more paranoid.

You, I have nothing against, though, even if we
disagree, so do not worry we'll talk someday (if
Copperberg does not casue the world to end, of
course).

add your comments


 

...alki Latin
by goldberg 8:21am Tue Sep 16 '03

print comment

...love it......taking time from brilliant writers and thinkers like amr,shirl and justlovich...just to take me on...well one thing is for sure,you wont have to bend your brain much.......all you need to do is insult in every way you can...so come ahead...at least we are not shooting at one another.......or are you intrested in a duel?

add your comments


 

Duel! Why? Latin
by AKhalil 9:02pm Tue Sep 16 '03

print comment

"...so come ahead...at least we are not shooting at one another.......or are you intrested in a duel?"

Why should I bother and dirty my clean hands? I'll just pass a rumor that you are actually a Palestinian from Palestineberg, and the ITF or the Mossad will do the rest in a preemptiv strike against a world renowned terrorist.

add your comments


 

Wow! How brave! Hebrew
by Shirl 10:06pm Tue Sep 16 '03

print comment

Any nerd can become a man behind his keyboard.
So when is the duel guys?

add your comments


 

..i am ready Latin
by goldberg 4:08am Wed Sep 17 '03

print comment

...i am ready ..anytime....will you be my second....you will need to arrange the place...time...weapons...rules...you know like in the old days.....if alki is timid we can always use paintball guns.

add your comments


 

Consider this... Latin
by Declan Gallagher 5:38am Wed Sep 17 '03

print comment

I'd firstly like to praise the previous post by Judith Butler. But I'd also like to bring to your attention the alternative to the conflict.

A Socilaist workers republic where neither jew nor otherwise rules but a classless society.

The Israelis and palestinians should unite to fight tyhe class war (instead of a religious one).

For more info on this you should buy "A world to win, the life of a revolutionary" by Tony Cliff (AKA Ygal Gluckenstein).

add your comments


 

Yes, It is anti-Semitic Latin
by Jeffrey 9:28pm Sat Sep 20 '03

print comment

Butler uses torutous rhetoric in the vain attempt to justify the morally bankrupt extremism of her orthodox left-wing ideology. As with most academic theoreticians who dabble in areas beyond their training and knowledge, she prefers to avoid historical records and independently verified facts. Instead, she engages in the hyperbolic and inflamatory accusations about "killings of children in Jenin", as if to imply that Israel's raison d'etre is to exterminate Palesinian infants. The facts to back up this claim do not exist, but Butler does not seem to care. Of course, this accusation dovetails very nicely with the historically anti-Semitic "blood libel", which has been disseminated in modern Arab society, including the Palestinian culture.

Butler and her ilk will never contribute to any constructive solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, because they can not function in the real world. They love the sound of their own voices, and are charmed by their elegant wordsmithing. But in the end,they contribute nothing of value to those on either side of the conflict, who continue to suffer. Meanwhile, the academic elitists feign their own purity and romanticize the "victimhood" of the members their latest exotic cause.

add your comments


 

(C) Indymedia Israel. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Indymedia Israel.