<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ENZZrYe_rg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ENZZrYe_rg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
^ Lol...This is a well known tactic of Israel and its supporters. They try to deflect attention away from the issue by accusing people of being anti-semitic all the time. Sorry buddy that doesn't work. It's funny though when a black person is quick to play the race card people jump all over that person, but when Jews and supporters of Israel play the ethno-racial card, there isn't the same reaction. Nothing I said is remotely anti-semitic. You fail Sir Jackie Chiles.
Your repeated use of the term "zionist lobby" gives it away...you are an anti-semite. It's actually the other way around from the way you try to portray it - it's not that supporters of Israel play the "ethno-racial" card...it's people like you, with your messed up view of the world blaming everything on the so-called "zionist lobby" playing the "zionist lobby" card. Indeed, the crazy thing about this whole "Zionist lobby" argument is not so much that there are some people out there who believe it, but that so many leading Arab officials and decision-makers profess this point of view. If, as they maintain, the "Zionist lobby" controls America, then why do the U.S. and Israel often disagree on major policy issues? From Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, to Israeli control over eastern Jerusalem, to the blockade of Yasser Arafat's compound in Ramallah this past week, the U.S. frequently criticizes Israeli actions and forces Israel to make concessions it would otherwise not countenance. In fact, the suggestion that there is an invincible "Zionist lobby" at work in Washington says far more about those who believe in it than it does about the reality on the ground. It indicates just how little understanding there is of democracy and freedom in much of the Arab and Islamic world today. They confuse the effective exercise of basic democratic rights with the sinister control of a nation's institutions. And that is because people in their own countries remain largely deprived of those very same fundamental rights. Moreover, pinning the blame on the "Zionists" enables Arab leaders to deflect attention from their own failings, both domestic and foreign. http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/1489.htm
The power of AIPAC and the Zionist lobby is a fact. They're the second most powerful lobby group behind AARP. Here's some reading for you: http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374531501 Also, please stop deflecting attention away from the issue here, which is the Israeli seige of Gaza that you support.
There's a little of both, don't you think? Once can take a principled stance against the existence of an explicitly Jewish state and not be antisemitic (just as one may be against the existence of a Muslim state or Christian state or black state or white state, etc.). But any public figure that takes such a stance with respect to Israel would be vilified immediately as a racist.
The greatest impediment to peace is the self righteous 'avenging angel' mindset displayed by both sides. You see it when people on Faux News go on and on about 'Homeside Bombers', and you see it here when the Palestinian side get that far away look in their eyes talking about Israeli War Crimes, quoting all sorts of UN Resolution numbers that they've never even read and know nothing about. But I support SJC in this specific assertion. In the same way that a person who say, "I don't hate black people, one of my best friends is black" is usually a closet racist, extensive field research shows that people who scream "Zionist blah, blah" over with the same zeal of a Communist talking about capitalists oppressors usually are anti-Semites who need an all-encompassing term for Jews that isn't Jews. In the broadest sense, of course, they don't actively hate a properly subservient Jew, just like the KKK man doesn't mind the black man as long he says, "Yessa massa!", they just loathe him and barely tolerate him, but they don't want to kill him. Of course there are people who dislike what Israel is doing, but they tend to not speak in the specifically predetermined rhetorical euphemisms.
I don't think criticism of Zionism and specifically actions undertaken in the name of Zionism is anti-semitism. Heck there are plenty of Jews themselves who think that Zionism has gone too far when it comes to the building of settlements and suppression of Palestinians. I will agree with you though that the mindset that Jews control everything is anti-semitic and some of the statements are bordering on that but I don't think most of the criticism here is based on that. I agree with Ottomaton that anti-zionism can often be used as a code word for anti-semitism. I would be hesitate though to jump to that conclusion here. I also think this charge of anti-semitism is often used by defenders of Israel to deflect any criticism of Israel.
Would calling to end American aid and subsidies to Israel (and Egypt) be considered anti-semitic? I really don't care about what they do over there. I'm tired of the endless chess game over that tiny strip of land. Sure, let's punt oil back to a 100 bucks per barrel, as long as we end our participation to that cluster****.
Source of this 'extensive field research'? I doubt there was any done. You basically describe yourself below. Why draw attention away from that? The barrier around Gaza is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention, why not just address that? It's because there's no adequate response you can think of. And you want to talk about war crimes? Do I need to quote atrocities from the Deir Yassin massacre too? I'm assuming this is why you agree Israel has the right to kill over 100+ civilians in a matter of 4 days. PS - The UN Security Council Resolution 242 had a vote of 14 to 0 which made it an OBLIGATORY international law. Not to mention each violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is recognized as a war crime. Furthermore, Palestinians have not be targeted with any UN resolutions. Hamas hasn't either. Israel has at least 60+, and if you take a look at most of them, you'll see why there is a militant leadership that was democratically voted in. Code: # Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention # Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians" # Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians # Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians # Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations # Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians # Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return # Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians # Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return. If the UN won't do anything to help these people of course they will take action for themselves.
Actually it is a bunk article, since Israeli newspapers themselves have stated that Israel started the conflict by carrying out an operation in Gaza (It was in the Ha'aretz newspaper). More to the point, as I said before, does anyone here really think that imposing a blockade and seige of Gaza is not an act of war? If Krauthammer cannot get his facts straight, and is instead peddling the Israeli line about how Hamas started the conflict, then it is difficult to take his opinions seriously. That and, of course, the fact that he is a well regarded pro-Likud neoconservative figure undermines his objectivity a little bit, don't you think?
What's a better way to describe those who support Israel's expansion (territorial, militarily, and politically) into Palestinian territories? Zionist is succinct, and it gets the point across. It is not an antisemitic term -- Israelis use it as well.
The others are equally biased and subjective. None of them really inform me enough to make a decision one way or the other, but are instead peddling their agendas to influence public opinion. But as I said, Israeli newspapers themselves have mentioned that Israel essentially took the first 'strike' against Gaza, but was not widely reported except for in Israel. That is a statement of fact, not a subjective opinion. The subjectivity comes in where people try to ignore that singular event so they can conveniently say "Hamas started it!" I only thought I would address that falsehood. So don't put words in my mouth, you seem to be the type who likes to insinuate much about other posters. I am half-Jewish in case you care about that kind of stuff. Not a self-hating Jew either.
Its a matter of tone and word frequency. Check out the footnotes on the Wikipedia entry on Zionist Entity for examples of the way "Zionist" is spit out like a bad taste. As with most pejorative terms, it isn't offensive in and of itself, but rather becomes offensive by the way people use it. See for example, the use of "colored" and "negro" which are not inaccurate words, but by being spit out as an angry insult for so long, they left the realm of polite conversation and became pejorative insults and indicative of discriminative thought.
