israel/palestine
30 Mar 2009
When Is An Anti-Semite Not An Anti-Semite?
Desperate to promote Israeli Government policy, the Australian Jewish establishment has resorted to calling all kinds of people anti-Semites — even Jews
Once again, the so-called pro-Israel lobby has shown how it feels about debate on Israel.
The latest major episode is the Jeff Halper affair. The Australian Jewish News (AJN) refused to publicise the times and venues of Halper's talks, and urged the Temple Emanuel to cancel its invitation of him. This was because Halper not only opposes house demolitions, but is "a hardline detractor of Israel", who believes that the state "courts 'apartheid'".
In a sense, this is a useful demonstration of the sorts of views "supporters of Israel" think the Jewish community should be protected from. Yet, most of these major organisations do not identify as pro-Israel, but as simply Jewish. The Executive Council for Australian Jewry (ECAJ), with all of its underlying Jewish bodies, the AJN, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS) are all presented as Jewish organisations, but they are all committed to strongly partisan positions on Israel.
This is problematic for a variety of reasons. Firstly, they claim to speak on behalf of the Jewish community, even though political opinions by a community organisation are unlikely to ever be entirely representative. Consequently, these organisations often say things that members of the Jewish community — such as myself — strongly disagree with.
Two years ago, a group of prominent Australian Jews, and over 100 fellow travellers (so to speak), released a mild statement on the matter. They thought that their concerns about "uncritical allegiance to Israeli Government policy ... should be met by reasoned argument rather than vilification". The signatories were concerned that "the Jewish establishment does not represent the full range of Jewish opinion".
In a sense, this was long overdue. Outside the Jewish community, critics of Israeli policy have long complained that they have not been allowed a fair hearing. One of their specific complaints is that leading Jewish organisations have unfairly accused them of anti-Semitism.
This accusation, by slandering the critic and shifting the debate, prevents honest discussion of the issues, and creates a chilling effect. Those who are willing to criticise Israeli policies run a serious risk of being treated this way, argued these critics. And further, if the leading Jewish organisations would not permit a fair hearing of grievances against Israel within the Jewish community either, then the issues could go entirely undiscussed.
In an immediate response to that mild statement, the Jewish organisations swung into action. As one, they denounced the petition and its signatories. They also arranged a counter-petition, in which they solemnly declared that Australian Jewish "communal roof bodies include a wide range of opinions".
Of course, the "wide range of opinions" plainly does not include someone who compares Israel's occupation to apartheid. So, what are the uttermost fringes of permissible discussion of Israel within the Jewish community?
Consider the case of Philip Mendes. According to the Jewish News, Mendes was one of the co-writers of the counter-petition. Mendes is a useful example, because he represents the left-most fringe of what is considered acceptable in the leading Jewish organisations. For example, when Antony Loewenstein criticised the AJN on Crikey, its editor suggested Crikey should have asked Mendes to write on the topic instead. Mendes is for the Jewish establishment the "good leftist", who they can point to with pride, as the diversity they are happy to have in their discussions of Israel.
As the fringe left of the Jewish establishment, he is the perfect illustration of the primary concern expressed in the IAJV's petition, "that Jewish organisations do not represent the full range of Jewish opinion". Indeed, what is striking is that not so many years ago, he felt able to write that "the ECAJ, state boards and community councils can reasonably claim to represent the entire spectrum of Jewish political and religious positions".
And exactly what are these views of Mendes's — this furthest "extreme" that the establishment will tolerate or acknowledge within the Jewish community? On Tuesday, Mendes gave a presentation to a Labor Party forum on when anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism. He says — as he has said in the past — that there are basically three left wing perspectives on Israel. The first "supports moderates" and condemns extremists on all sides. In his presentation, Mendes gave an example: Julia Gillard defending Israel's right to defend itself in Gaza. This is the only perspective on the left Mendes doesn't criticise — presumably it's his view. Israel killing some 1400 Palestinians, and suffering all of 13 casualties in its onslaught is apparently "self defence" in Mendes' world. The Palestinian right to self-defence, of course, went unmentioned.
The second perspective is also one Mendes thinks someone can legitimately hold. This is one that holds Israel, and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, primarily responsible for continued violence. Mendes graciously permits this camp to raise concerns about aspects of the occupation, discrimination against Palestinians within Israel and the issue of the refugees. While Mendes thinks such people cannot simply be dismissed as anti-Semites, he believes that at least some of them "may reasonably be characterised as unbalanced and naïve at best". Their concerns fall within what Mendes calls "legitimate non anti-Semitic political debate".
However, in the Mendes structure there is a third perspective, which is when anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism. These anti-Zionists portray Israelis and their Jewish supporters as "inherently evil oppressors". Manifestations of this anti-Semitism include the view that in the Hanan Ashrawi affair, members of the Jewish community exerted "undue financial and political influence". Believing in the wealth and influence of Jewish organisations (which Mendes calls "alleged") is a sign of this anti-Semitism. These third-perspective anti-Semites often favour a boycott, which he sees as being based on ethnic stereotyping of all Israelis.
Indeed, comparisons and references to Nazis are also a typical manifestation of anti-Semitism according to Mendes. While he hedges this part of his definition, Mendes thinks he's able to identify someone as anti-Semitic if they make comparisons between Israel's conduct and the Nazis.
For example, John Pilger is supposedly anti-Semitic, because he is said to have made eight comparisons between Israel and the Nazi Holocaust in an article about the Gaza massacre. While Pilger may sometimes use overly dramatic language, in making these comparisons and assertions of genocide, he was mostly citing other people. The UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Richard Falk, for example, compared Israel's siege on Gaza to a Nazi "collective atrocity". Isn't this a fairly significant comment, worth reporting? By the Mendes standard, it is, a priori, anti-Semitic, and doesn't warrant consideration.
Socialist Alliance uses "Stop the Holocaust in Gaza" placards. Mendes assumes that they are anti-Semites too. John Docker and Ned Curthoys advocate an academic boycott of Israel, so they're anti-Semites too. That's right, even Jews can be anti-Semites if they go outside what Mendes considers the correct margins for debate.
That is the striking part of the Mendes margins. He's willing to consider the "extent to which the creation of the state of Israel contributed to the historical injustice that has befallen the indigenous Palestinians". However, if someone concludes that this means the endeavour to create a Jewish state was illegitimate, such a person is an "anti-Zionist fundamentalist", and so presumably falls outside Mendes' room for debate. Mendes allows people to reflect on a resolution of the "refugee tragedy". However, those who advocate a right of return would plainly bring about the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and so we can assume Mendes considers them anti-Semites too.
Consider now what is left of Mendes' idea of legitimate debate. Everything is open for discussion, until someone disagrees with Mendes's conclusions, at which point they are anti-Semitic.
Empirically, what Mendes asserts is broadly under-informed. For example, Israeli political discourse has long been accustomed to rash comparisons to Nazis, including comparisons made by and about Israel's own founding fathers. One may find this language insensitive, but that doesn't mean it's anti-Semitic. And what are we to say of Israelis who openly mimic Nazis, painting slogans like "Arabs to the Gas Chambers"?
Another argument these third-perspective anti-Zionists use which in Mendes's book qualifies them as anti-Semites is mentioning that Zionist Jews collaborated with the Nazis. Yet historian Benny Morris is among those who have noted the attempt by the Zionist LEHI organisation to "establish an anti-British alliance with Germany" during World War II (see his book Righteous Victims, 2001, p 174). Is Benny Morris an anti-Semite too?
If Mendes disagrees with someone, he should not respond by calling them anti-Semitic. He should seek to prove that they are mistaken. He holds, for example, that Socialist Alliance shouldn't have made placards saying "Stop the Holocaust in Gaza". I agree. I also disapprove of Socialist Alliance's ongoing devotion to Lenin and Trotsky. The appropriate response to these disagreements is seeking to prove one's case, using things like evidence and argument.
Mendes thinks Israel should not be considered a racist state founded upon settler colonialism. If he wants others to hold this view, he should seek to prove it, rather than smearing those he disagrees with as anti-Semites. It is about time all aspects of Zionism can be debated in good faith, without resorting to outrageous slurs to obscure the issues.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I’d love to know who ‘Michael Brull’ is.
His article is so twisted that it would be hilarious if it weren’t on a legitimate forum.
The IAJV currently has just over 500 signatories. Out of a Jewish community that numbers more than 100,000 so obviously the majority of the Jewish community agrees with what the umbrella organisations are doing.
It is not anti-Semitic to criticise Israel and i’ve never heard a mainstream Jewish leader say that it is. If it were anti-Semitic to criticise Israel than the most anti-Semitic country in the world would be Israel. However it is discriminatory to take actions out of context, hold Israel to a higher standard than other nations or to demand the dismantling of Zionism without demanding the dismantling of any other nationalist aspirations be they ethnic or religious. It is discriminatory to demand an academic or economic boycott of Israel and not call for boycotts against any of the other major human rights abusers.
"It is discriminatory to demand an academic or economic boycott of Israel and not call for boycotts against any of the other major human rights abusers."
So we’ve established that Israel is a ‘major human rights abuser’, but unless we launch a concurrent campaign against Australia, China, the US, the UK, Pakistan etc, etc, we’re effectively barred from saying it, or demanding it stop.
To be fair, many people already work towards those goals anyway, but hardly anyone ever all at once. The beauty of activism is that I can work for one particular thing, while someone else focuses their energy elsewhere. We may both agree on causes, and both simultaneously be thankful that the other is working too, but never meet nor verbally communicate with the other.
This form of logic is an exercise in limiting dissent against *any* abusers of human rights, and not at all about racism against Israeli Jews who favour the Zionist cause. And the framework of Zionism is fundamentally elitist and racist, as are the frameworks of any nation engaging english-style parliament. They should all be dissolved, and started on the basis of equality and compassion, including Israel. But only Israel is actively killing its direct neighbours and countrymen (actively today), which is why it is more pertinent. And out of them all, Israel should (by the collective histories of its people) know better.
I don’t understand the hypocrisy that paints Israel bad and Australia good, or China bad and Australia good, (and so on) but that’s to be challenged not on the notion that because we don’t challenge Australia we should refrain from challenging Israel, but because we *do* challenge Israel we should also challenge Australia. That, however, is less likely to be a result of racism against Israeli Zionists, and more likely to be as a resulted of blinkered and unthinking nationalism. The great thing is, if you can get to the root of that and nip it out, the same argument will serve as well against zionists who insist that Israel and its policies are fine, and Australia would become a better place to be.
cheers, Derek
More undergraduate "analysis" from Antony Loewenstein’s IAJV mob.
This would be the same Michael Brull who apparently describes himself as "an Australian commentator on Jewish matters" and earlier in the week wrote a piece about prominent Jewish judge "Edward Einfeld". you know? The guy that got sent to jail for a speeding ticket and perjury? Edward? Anyone?
Brull described [Marcus] Einfeld as "one of the Jewish community’s most decent and admirable figures" yet apparently couldn’t even get his name right.
And of course, in the true Loewenstein tradition, when people laughed at him, and pointed out that he really had no idea what the hell he was talking about, that could only possibly be further proof of insidious Zionist smear tactics… Read all about the modus operandi of yet another thin-skinned, glass-jawed "anti-Zionist" (cough cough cough) commentator.
Say what you want about Mendes, Michael, at least he actually has a clue what he’s talking about…
1) "I’d love to know who ‘Michael Brull’ is.
His article is so twisted that it would be hilarious if it weren’t on a legitimate forum.
The IAJV currently has just over 500 signatories. Out of a Jewish community that numbers more than 100,000 so obviously the majority of the Jewish community agrees with what the umbrella organisations are doing. "
2)"More undergraduate "analysis" from Antony Loewenstein’s IAJV mob.
Say what you want about Mendes, Michael, at least he actually has a clue what he’s talking about…"
The relevance of who ‘Michael Brull’ is to the contents of his article are somewhat puzzling. There may be over 100,000 Jews in Australia, but they are not a unified community, and there are many Jews who do not have any affiliations with Jewish community organisations. At least the 500 or so signatories, of whom I happen to be one, are at least prepared to stand up and be counted amongst those who oppose the zionist, racist, apartheid state of Israel.
I am also not sure what is meant by undergraduate "analysis" from Antony Loewenstein’s IAJV mob.
People who have researched and written extensively and in great depth about Israel/Palestine are academics of professorial level and some have lost their positions at US universities because of AIPAC and its lobbying to the highest echelons of that government.
A few books which may help to educate and inform are:
Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel
The One-State Solution by Virginia Tilley
Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein
…….and Mendes does not have a clue as to what he is talking about - he lives in Australia and not in Israel, as do so many of those who sit here away from the excesses of the IDF and are not prepared to actually go and live in Israel.
One has to wonder why.
And as a Jew I object to the label anti-semitic being so loosely used as to make it irrelevant!
Oh please. Look up Josken and see how he effectively removed himself from the Jewish community years ago, for personal reasons. The issues and resentment are his, and his alone.
Isn’t it fascinating that the only people, like Loewenstein, Brull, Mannie et al. who ever seem to start a sentence with the words "as a Jew", as he does in his final paragraph, feel the need to remind people. Every other credible Jewish person doesn’t need to convince themself or others.
Sorry Mannie, you’re not fooling anyone. If you want to spend your life attacking Jews and Israel, fine. The good news, is nobody is going to murder you for it (as opposed to say being a homosexual in Gaza or Iran). However spare us the sanctimonious "as a Jew" routine, which Loewenstein, Brull and others like you use with monotonous regularity.
I could convert to Islam in about five seconds if I wanted, and then run around saying "as a Muslim…" however it wouldn’t be especially credible.
*This comment has been edited
Actually, some of what DanLew says is quite right. I did accidentally write on my blog Edward instead of Marcus. When I realised my mistake, I corrected it, and wrote that I was a little embarassed by it.
Of course, Marcus’s name has been well covered in the press, so no one needs particular acquaintance with the Jewish community to know his. I personally dislike the constant media attacks on him, and do not claim to be an authority on his legal difficulties, which I do not enjoy reading or hearing about. As it happens, I have some acquaintance with Marcus’s son, Edward, and so I felt quite silly about my mixup. Though also irrelevant, I was also taught by one of Marcus’s ex wives in year 3 (and there are other sort of family connections, though I would not want them to be held responsible for my views, nor should I wish in any way to draw Edward into this).
That about exhausts the true things Danlew said. That aside, I didn’t know if anyone saw my mistake, no one pointed it out to me, and if anyone laughed about it, I was unaware of it. Going to the link, I’m happy to see someone apparently regularly reads my blog. I did not, however, take the link down - I corrected it, as I’ve just said. The person who says I’m an idiot ignores that I read the same issue of the Jewish News they did and commented on it too. Furthermore, it’s a little ironic that Mendes says comparisons to Nazis are anti-Semitic, but this fellow - presumably in defence of Mendes, refers to Antony Loewenstein as Obersturmbanführer. I should not wish to suggest this fellow is anti-Semitic. Just quite vicious and spiteful, and not taken to getting distracted by any of the issues being discussed.
Can a non-Jew, and certainly non-Zionist, join in this little spat between ‘brothers and sisters’?
First, I agree with Derek. There are many places and people in the world that deserve close attention to their actions (previous and present) and words, including our very own little Australia.
But…. as of now, there is one place in the world, one little section of humanity, that does seem to have lost all relationship to that humanity, and is acting in a totally abhorrent, violent, disgusting, genocidal, murderous way. That place is the parts of Palestine which calls itself israel, by dint of mass murder, displacement, occupation, destruction; starvation, mistreatment of the Palestinian people; and the sometime Jewish Zionist (sometime not) but almost (but not all) all corrupt peoples who have been allowed to take over and occupy that land by world leaders after WW2, who were filled by a manufactured and well nurtured guilt, and who now control, via what some may call Fifth Columnists, most of the world’s media and most of the world’s Governments.
Certainly, they have shown, by the Charles Freemen example, that they control the US Administration/s.
One could lay most of the world’s problems to this one part of the world, and in particular to this one section of failed humanity, who have acted with total impunity and inhumanity for so long, with the non-critical support of America and Britain and parts of Europe.
I say that it is far beyond the time when this non-critical support be withdrawn, and criticism be sheeted home to where it belongs, and the people responsible for so many atrocities against human beings, and for so long, be brought to book.
One wonders what it would take to get through to the closed minds on the Zionist supporters both here (and in all other places in the world) and in Palestine. Maybe a US President who was not willing to grovel to this mob, and give them everything they want, including the tools to commit mass murder and mass destruction of peoples homes and businesses.
Does not appear as if Obama will fill the bill! Dazza.
Here’s a joke for the blogs. I have been censored out of NM for pointing out that jews are not special.
Good grief. On a blog about the debate over Israel.
So Israel are allowed to blast, kill, maim, fry children and turn them into starved phantoms but we must not call them jews or point out that they are bullies and murderous thugs who hijack language and human rights for themselves.
Even though millions of jews all over the world say the same thing.
Spare me from the hypocrisy.
Dear MaryJ,
I think NM may have censored you, though I don’t know if I would have. This is presumably because what you said was grossly offensive, and also idiotic. I don’t remember precisely what you wrote - I think that no more than a million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. On a lesser note, you also suggested that there’s no such thing as holocaust survivor, due to some dubious etymological game you played.
Put aside how offensive and stupid this is. You cited as evidence for these and other opinions Norman Finkelstein’s Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein’s book comes with an endorsement by Raul Hilberg - perhaps the leading scholar on the extermination of the Jews, and Finkelstein himself recognises this in Holocaust Industry, and also in his book scrutinising the work of Goldhagen. That book was also endorsed by Hilberg. Further, Finkelstein mentions that his late parents survived the Holocaust quite regularly, not least because his mother was a tremendous influence on him.
It’s not up to me whether NM is willing to publish things you write. Perhaps online magazines would prefer not to feature the ravings of illiterate bigots. The point of my article was not that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are legitimate positions that should be debated. It’s that anti-Semitism is unfairly conflated with anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism can mount a serious case, and deserves a hearing, whereas someone like MaryJ does not.
Has Mendes been invited to respond to this article? As I have not read his book, I would be interested to read his opinion on this representation of his ideas.
"Here’s a joke for the blogs. I have been censored out of NM for pointing out that jews are not special."
Am I reading a special uncut version? Because it looks to me as if you are right here on NM saying that Jews are not special, without being censored.
Hi Garnolda,
Yes, Philip has been invited to respond.
cheers
Marni (ed)
Michael B, it’s not clear what MaryJ originally wrote and exactly why it was censored or why your response is so hostile.
Ben Pobjie, can you give an assurance that the comments here haven’t been censored? I’m confused.
Lisa, I can’t give you an assurance that the comments here haven’t been censored - I wouldn’t have a clue - but I can give you an assurance that maryj has not been "censored out of NM for pointing out that Jews are not special".
I can give you this assurance because I can see her, right there above these comments, on NM, pointing out that Jews are not special. If she had been "censored out of NM for pointing out that Jews are not special", you and I would not be able to read her post on NM pointing out that Jews are not special, I would not have been able to respond to it, and you would not have been able to respond to my response.
Also, it would seem that Michael B actually read what maryj said before it was removed, so probably it is clear to him what she originally wrote, although obviously not to us.
Hi Lisadp,
We did delete maryj’s orginal comment because it went against our comments policy. She hasn’t been censored, however. She’s free to write whatever she likes as long as she respects NM policy marni
More voices against the charges of anti-Semitism.
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21016
Michael, it should be a celebration that more jews survived, not a matter of despair. It’s pathetic that jews want to claim that more and more were exterminated when historians have shown that many more escaped than first thought. And it is not an etymological game, holocaust literally and factually means "completely burnt", it should be a great celebration that many more jews were not burnt than first thought.
What a pathetic and spurious argument you raise.
When we discovered this week that "only" 173 people were completely burnt in the Melbourne fires instead of 210 did we go into mourning and demand more deaths?
I don’t think so.
The insane need to believe that more died than did is the absurdity, not what historians have stated.
Finkelstein’s mother said "with so many claiming compensation, who did Hitler kill".
It takes very strange people to claim that survival is death but that is what you are claiming.
Celebrate the survival instead.
Sheesh, jews migrated instead of being killed and you seem to think that is a bad thing.
I think it’s great personally. A real kick in the teeth for the lunatic Hitler.
The problem is that some have caused that not to be much of a celebration by torturing and persecuting Palestinians to punish Europeans.
Anti-Semitism is damaging words or actions against Semites for being Semitic per se.
In the World today there are about 15 million essentially culturally Jewish people (read Jewish Hungarian Arthur Koestler’s "The Thirteenth Tribe"), 300 million ethnically and culturally Arab Semites and 1,500 culturally Arab Semitic Muslims.
Anti-Semitism comes in 2 equally repugnant varieties, anti-Jewish anti-Semitism and anti-Arab anti-Semitism.
Criticism of human rights abuses committed by Zionists or Jews is NOT anti-Semitism - and those who say it is are abusing and diminishing the term. Indeed by trivializing the deadly reality of historical anti-Jewish anti-Semitism such extremists are actually being egregiously anti-Jewish anti-Semtic themselves.
Decent anti-racist humanitarian Jews - and indeed all decent, anti-racist humanitarians - are obliged to speak out against the racist Zionists running the race-based, nuclear terrorist, rogue state of Apartheid Israel that keeps 1.5 million Arab Israelis subject to race-based Apartheid laws (e.g. requiring race-based ID at all times, forbidding marriage to non-Israeli fellow Palestinians etc - utterly obscene laws) and keeps 4 million Occupied Palestinians (half of them kids, 3/4 women and kids) in perpetual abusive imprisonment in the ever-diminishing West Bank Bantustans and what the Catholic Church describes as the Gaza Concentration Camp.
Palestine-specific Zionism arose in the late 19th century at the peak of racist European colonialism and in theory and horrendous practice is about invasion and occupation of a foreign country accompanied by dispossession, disempowerment and ethnic cleansing of the Indigenous Arab Semitic inhabitants of Palestine to create a race-based Jewish State - as anti-Arab anti-Semitic as one can get short of dropping phosphorus bombs on Gaza children.
Again one turns to outstanding Jewish scholar Professor Jared Diamond for a moral judgment - in the Prologue of his book "Collapse" (2005) he enunciates the "moral principle, namely that it is morally wrong for one people to dispossess, subjugate, or exterminate another people" – an injunction grossly violated by the racist Zionists running race-based Apartheid Israel.
For a current opinion of another outstanding Jewish scholar on those running Apartheid Israel one can turn to Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, ex-Israeli soldier Professor Avi Shlaim (see:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine): "brief review of Israel’s record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel’s real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones".
A further outstanding Jewish scholar, Professor Bertell Ollman is blunt in his assessment of Zionist anti-Arab Semitism (see: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/resignation.php ): "if Zionism is indeed a particularly virulent form of nationalism and, increasingly, of racism and if Israel is acting toward its captive minority in ways that resemble more and more how the Nazis treated their Jews, then we must also say so. For obvious reasons, the Zionists are very sensitive about being compared to the Nazis (not so sensitive that it has restrained them in their actions but enough to bellow "unfair" and to charge "anti-Semitism" when it happens). Yet, the facts on the ground, when not obscured by one or another Zionist rationalization, show that the Zionists are the worst anti-Semites in the world today, oppressing a Semitic people as no nation has done since the Nazis."
Of course, for Aussie Jews and Goyim, a simple rule of thumb is to imagine that the racist Zionists were treating Aussies the way they treat Occupied Palestinian kids (post-invasion under-5 infant Occupied Palestinian deaths total 0.2 million as assessed from UN Population Division data) - decent Aussie Jews and Goyim would be obliged to protest.
And of course the racist Zionists DO treat Aussies thus with the full support of the Zionist-beholden Lib-Labs. Thus 25,000 Aussie citizens were bombed by Israelis in Lebanon in 2006 with the full support of the Lib-Labs - indicative of the malignant effect of Zionists on Australian public life and Australian values.
And finally, one must observe that it is wonderful, anti-racist, humanitarian JEWISH scholars (such as Professors Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Avi Shlaim, Bertell Ollman, Stephen Rose, Tanya Reinhart Ilan Pappe etc etc) who are most prominent in the World in decrying violent, genocidal grossly human rights-abusing racist Zionist anti-Arab anti-Semitism.
On MaryJ’s comments, I wouldn’t go so far as to call them idiotic, but perhaps misinformed. For a start, it is an etymological argument (you’re arguing the definition of the word, from its greek roots, not it’s usage). If I said my grandfather was a veteran of WWII, you wouldn’t argue that (if he were there, which incidentally, he wasn’t..). If he’d gone, and sat in an office filing reports, he would still have been a veteran as much as if he’d sat on the front line. But for fate/circumstance, the outcome could have been different.
Similiarly, if a Jew existed in Germany at the height of the nazi regime, and survived, it’s easy enough to suggest they were a holocaust survivor, since that is the name given to the persecution and genocide of ethnic minorities in Germany at the time. They might have reached Auswitz or stayed in their village undetected, but I bet either way, a Jew in Nazi Germany would have been (not unreasonably) living very scared (as many Muslims no doubt do today in middle eastern or western countries alike)..
I don’t know where Mary gets her ideas that perhaps only a million Jews died as a result of Nazi genocidal policy during WWII; what I have read that bothers me is not that the number of Jews killed is overestimated, but that an equal number of others is routinely ignored in reference to the holocaust. That, if there is an issue to be annoyed about, is certainly a more important piece of information to disseminate. Unfortunately, even today Romany gypsies, homosexuals and the disabled are despised/disliked in varying quantities in various different places. Perhaps they didn’t get as good PR as did the European Jews, post WWII (which is to say nothing about the tragedy of so many deaths via such senseless genocide, and quite a lot about the power of the existing Zionists in palestine at the time the war closed).
I would like to see the world’s Jewry (and others) begin to ‘share’ the memory and the tragedy of the holocaust (and to exhort others to do so too), to acknowledge the other dead we all seem to forget so easily about (apparently between 5 and 6 million), perhaps even with Japan. Though it was an unconnected event, it was definitely a holocaust in the truest sense, committed not by Nazis but by Americans.
The whole thing was tragic, unforgivable, and should never have been repeated, in whole or part. The real tragedy is that no sooner had the world dusted itself of, it was out committing genocide again.
MaryJ, it’s worth considering your words. If you have something seriously contentious to say, back it up with references. I agree that were the numbers far lower, it would be great news. I don’t, however, see that as factually based. You probably should be careful who you read and how much credence you give them. As with any great tragic event, it is always worthwhile thinking you are standing before a survivor of the event as you speak. If you wouldn’t say it then, best not to say it anywhere (not self-censorship, but rather more about the need to ascertain the facts absolutely before pontificating).
cheers, Derek
O.K brethren and others.
How we like to claim those high achievers, Einstein, Freud, Aaron Spelling, Monika Lowinsky,that neo lib guy in the white house who got kicked out before Bush did, while they’re flying high.
However when they come unstuck, fall from grace or self destruct, they become about as popular as a pork chop in synagogue on Yom Kippur.
I’m sure Marcus does a lovely Kol Nidre, but enough aside.
I’m not special there I’ve said it!
Well not like Edward aScisssorhands is anyhow.
For that matter I was contributing to Tharunka in the 70’s. Remember Sol Salby in Direct Action?
Whatever happened to old Solly? the first expatriate Israeli antisemite I ever met.
Here’s a definition for you, not original: antisemite. Jew hater, like Maryj.
The one who told me that he did’nt give a toss about the Pales, he just hated Jews, and Palestine was their achilles heal. Oli
May an Australian of Arab parentage enter this debate?
I want to thank people like Michael Brull, Prof Halper, Antony L. and others who against the onslaught from their own Jewish community continue to stand up for justice. It takes a great deal of courage to go against the tide.
I think it improper that the state of Israel be described using Nazi-style metaphors. But the accusation of apartheid is legitimate.
It is only a matter of time before the actions of the state of Israel will be as unacceptable as South Africa in the apartheid era.
THe only difference here is the cowardice of the pro-Israel lobby who cry "racism!, anti-Semitism!" at the hint of any criticism of the violent policies of the state of Israel
Yes but Derek, I am not talking about jews or others who were in Germany at the time, I am talking about people like Shimon Peres who moved from Poland with his parents in 1934 to Palestine yet still behaves like a victim of something instead of a lifetime victimiser.
I am talking about those 2 thirds of jews who luckily escaped but still claim to be part of the "final solution".
It is a fraud mate, pure and simple - it is as dumb as claiming I survived the Glanville train disaster.
I wasn’t on the train but I survived.
Sheesh. I didn’t write the books, others did the work that is very compelling and good news I would have thought.
Yeah, that ‘Glanville’ train disaster was terrible.
Seriously Maryj, you are loco.
Can we return to a rational discussion about a valid topic? Stop trying to accommodate the nut-jobs and ignore them instead.
"Stop trying to accommodate the nut-jobs and ignore them instead."
Calling someone a nut-job isn’t rational - we are the product of our environments, our learning. What is the purpose of such discussions if not to inform? If we already all agree, let’s do something more constructive.
Mary, I have no debate with your ideas regarding the many Jews not personally linked to Nazi Germany. The misappropriation of the tragedy of the very real slaughter of many millions of Jews, gypsies, poles, russian et al by the Zionist regime of Palestine in WWII and past is precisely the ‘myth’ that Ahmadinejad (and other prominent Iranians) talk about. That is, the facts are facts, but the perception of those facts (part of which includes framing the tragedy *only* around the Jewish victims) is and has been a significant part of the power and untouchable-ness of Israel for the past 60 years.
I suspect there was more in your previous post that the NM eds took as poor form, but I don’t think there can be argument in relation to this point (leaving the 2/3 statistics you supply aside for a moment, of course). One point; I’m not sure how early the segregation began in Germany, but I seem to recall that in ‘34 it wouldn’t have been out of the question that ramifications of the new order began scaring certain astute Jews into emigrating.
cheers, Derek
I believe Maryj is referring to the tragedy of 1992, when journeyman Newcastle backrower Marc Glanville left his wallet on a train, causing him immense inconvenience.
I have no particular problem with you censoring her out of existence, as numerous bloggers (on both sides of the political spectrum) have in the past.
However it is incredibly weak for you to simply mention it "Went against your comments policy". How about you specify why? Her comments were pure Holocaust denial.
MaryJ is simply a new sockpuppet (pseudonym) for a very well known agitator on a number of blogs, and her totally foul views deserve the ultimate disinfectant - sunlight.
Nassere:
Oh give me a break.
They don’t require bodyguards. They don’t need police protection. They have never had to move house, or check under their car before starting it. Although they will all have big sooky tantrums about all the "death threats" they’ve received (especially when trying to promote a poorly written book). The honest truth however, is the biggest threat they face is an angry letter to the editor. Why? Because Jews don’t issue fatwas.
You want bravery? Try Ayaan Hirsii Ali. Or Wafa Sultan. Salman Rushdie perhaps. They are brave and actually do face death for speaking out against Islam. On the other hand, Brull and Loewenstein are a couple of attention seeking schmucks. At best.
NAssere continues:
Sure. If you aren’t into that whole "truth" and "evidence thing".
If Israel practices Apartheid, as you claim, how is it then, that a Palestinian can walk onto the same bus as a Jew, into the same restaurant as a Jew, or study at the same university as a Jew, and blow themselves up?
Look Nassere, the undeniable fact is, that even a Muslim woman in Israel, has more rights than in nearly all Arab countries. There are even Arab members of the Knesset (Israeli parliament).
On the other hand, you have Saudi Arabia, which has roads for Muslims only, and where Jews are not even permitted entry into the country.
That’s real Apartheid. And of course you’ll never hear these oh so brave activists uttering a word about it, because Jews aren’t involved.
All the accusations about Apartheid, or Israel behaving like Nazis, are little more than nice dishonest antisemitic slogans, which look good on placards and at feral protests, but simply aren’t based in reality. Israel is a modern liberal democracy, surrounded by backward Islamist theocracies bent on its destruction. One only need to watch children’s Television in the Middle East to see the stark contrast: Israeli kids love life, Palestinian children worship deathl.
This is the undergraduate analysis to which I referred earlier. Slogans are easy. Especially when you are preaching to an audience (cough Marilyn) who have no clue and can be easily brainwashed into hating a country which is one of the 21st century’s greatest achievers. That doesn’t make them any more accurate than what was being said about Jews in 1939.
"Israel is a modern liberal democracy"
That’s right. And, like other ‘modern liberal democracies’, it tends to takes lives when it doesn’t get what it wants, and simply to get what it wants.
Danlew, I invite you to join me (and no doubt others) when we discuss the violent and sociopathic shortcomings of Australia and its elite, and also that of the US, the UK, Saudi Arabia, et al, and try to figure out why it is (except in the case of Saudi, where it is obvious, because the level of state driven violence against its own people is sufficiently high to make it a very brave Saudi who steps out of line) the people don’t rise up against their violent, elitist governments over all the human rights breaches, and all the wars against *other people*.
I, and others, can easily be found discussing these other topics across the net (but also in New Matilda). Maybe you can too, and maybe you can’t. The fact you won’t find evidence of those other debates in this thread has largely to do with the fact that this thread is about, specifically, Israel.
For all intents and purposes, the Jew-only roads in the west bank work the same as any in Saudi. Only one group is free to travel and access in and between their lands, and it is not the Palestinians. I find it hard to believe this is so contested; the ‘checkpoints’ and the difficulty of movement is well documented. Were I you, I’d hide from bringing up Saudi’s shortcomings lest they be used as a lever to show Israel’s.
cheers, Derek
I tend to agree with MaryJ, having read the same articles, probably, in Aljazeera magazine, US edition. In it, there are well detailed articles indicating that most certainly the numbers claimed for Jews killed in the German Holocaust has been blown totally out of proportion, because probably, this has been deemed as good for the Zionist cause, and any discussion to draw this to our attention may hit against Australian Law.
What we have to watch out for, and what probably got Marj and possible me at times, were the Aust. Racial Discrimination Laws, which can be used to kill dissent in relation to Jews, but can be legally by-passed in order to work against Indigenous Australians. So many countries now have laws against so-called Holocaust Deniers, laws so loved (and probably instigated) by Zionist israel.
In Germany at the time of Hitler and his Final Solution, a whole lot of people, Jews, Poles, Romany, physically disabled, mentally deficient, even German citizens who did not have blue eyes were subject to his Final Solution, put to death, in pursuit of a Superior Ayran Race!
Very little is said about all the other ‘exterminations’, because that does not suit the Zionist plans, it is not relevant to Ersatz israel, and the Zionist ambitions for a fully Jewish Religious State, ‘cleansed’ of any Arab or even non-believer ‘stain’. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?!!
The story of the Holocaust of Jews has been taken over and used and abused by the World Zionist Jewry in pursuit of their goals. And because of various Laws passed in all countries at the behest of Zionist Jews, any inquiry and investigation into the truth or otherwise of the claims of World Zionism has been banned, or very much discouraged. That Aljazeera America feels able to do so at this time says much! But then they do have a Freedom of Speech, which we do NOT!
We just hear so very little from the surviving victims of the many other pogroms around the world in the last couple of hundred years, because they do not have the Media resources to keep it all in the forefront of peoples minds on daily basis, to entrench and fortify the guilt complex so handy for the Zionist cause.
Then again, all those others may have just decided to move on! Have a life!
Last night on ABC TV I watched an article in regard to an old bloke in WA, who has been pursued relentlessly by the (SWF) Jews for many years, for alleged War Crimes. I have to wonder when someone, some body is going to also start pursuing the thousands of Jews in israel also for War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity, up to and including the many Soldiers in the IDF who have admitted to atrocities, up to and including the leaders and Rabbis who led them into the crimes, and encouraged (the Rabbis) them to commit these atrocities, in the name of ‘ethnic Religious/racial cleansing’. One would hope this pursuit would also continue for decades, or until all perpetrators have been brought to book. Dazza.
danlew, the fact that you could write "On the other hand, you have Saudi Arabia, which has roads for Muslims only, and where Jews are not even permitted entry into the country." When there are Jewish only roads in the West Bank that split communities shows how one eyed you are.
What is it about finding a crime perpetrated by Israel and try to justify it by finding another country that is guilty of the same crime? It is still a crime even if you lie to yourself that there is a valid reason for it.
Okay, I want to make this really plain and unequivocal, so I will say this once only. Holocaust denial is NOT something light or funny or trivial or interesting. I don’t know if NM censors swearing, so I won’t say any swear words. I will say I find it morally odious, personally grossly offensive, and regard anyone who doubts the extermination of 5-6 million Jews as an ignorant bigot, almost certainly motivated by bad faith (of an extreme sort). My grandmother survived Auschwitz. Almost the whole of the rest of her family was exterminated.
So yes, Derek Lane, MaryJ’s views are idiotic, and worse. Dazza - the numbers were not "blown out of proportion". 5-6 million Jews killed is a historical fact (scholars find it hard to pinpoint the precise number, and this is not surprising). This is beyond debate, and MaryJ’s citing of sources that contradict her - assuming she knows how to read she obviously hasn’t read them, and grossly distorts the point of what Finkelstein was saying - show she is dishonest. I have nothing in common with holocaust deniers, or people who think the holocaust was in some way trivial or overstated.
Derek Lane:
Except that "for all intents and purposes", you are making things up.
There is no such thing as Jew-only roads in the West Bank, or anywhere else. It is a complete falsehood. A lie.
That didn’t stop clueless and dishonest individuals such as Antony Loewenstein, and now you, spreading it, but it remains a lie.
There are roads for Israelis only, just as the United States has roads which are off-limits to Mexicans, and as most countries have their own territory with restrictions on illegal aliens. In the case of Israeli-only roads, I note that Arab Israelis, Muslim Israelis, B’hai Israelis and Jewish Israelis can all travel on those roads. Indeed the entire reason they are limited to Israelis only, is because Palestinians were shooting at Israeli cars, and killing civilians. Cars bearing Israeli number plates also belong to the over one million Israeli Arabs, some of whom have been shot to death in Palestinian ambushes as well.
In contrast Saudi Arabia, certainly does have Muslim only roads (refer my earlier link), which amounts to nothing more than religious apartheid.
Your comments about Israel are patently false and I demand you retract them and apologise, or stand judged for the level of intellectual dishonesty so prevalent among the anti-Israel left.
Can someone please get rid of that obnoxious advertisement for Coke Zero which pops up, replete with sound? I don’t need a French accent blaring from my speakers every time I load this page.
Michael Brull it is not beyond debate, it has been debated and debunked by many historians, including jewish ones.
Why the hell do you want those people to be dead? When I read Finkelstein’s book and the MacDonogh’s book I celebrated. I didn’t feel that I had been ripped off or something.
There are no known facts but MacDonogh spent 10 years trying to find out and found records showing that some 2 thirds of Germans, Austrians and Russians and others escaped before the purges.
6 million is a number plucked out of the air. For christ’s sake Michael, what are you? A professional mourner for people who did not die?
Celebrate man. Cheer, cry with joy, they lived.
Many, many people deemed to be dead actually lived and you say I am crazy for stating it?
Sheesh, who are you calling a nutcase?
And Daniel, Saudi Arabia is 100% muslim, of course all their roads are muslim only.
What an idiot you take us all for.
On the other hand Israel has been a jewish state for about the same length of time Australia was a white Australia in 1788.
The population of Israel has always been a minimum of 20% arab and those jews only roads are built in Palestine and not Israel.
See the difference Daniel?
Michael, read some books mate. You might try Tom Segev’s 1967, or Ilan Pappe’s "Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine", or Akiva Eldar and Idith Zertal’s "Lords of the Land".
And for pete’s sake, celebrate that more people survived than first thought.
I am not in the least bit loopy, except in Daniel’s peurile mind.
I would like to thank Michael Brull for his article. I also would like to thank Dr GideonPolya for the insightful comments regarding an extremely misappropriated term - anti Semitism.
I have heard Philip Mendes deliver his paper entitled, "When does anti Zionism become anti Semitism". I personally thought much if it was crap, and kept a copy to prove it. The basis of Mendes’ argument is that ANYONE who is critical of Israeli policy, critical of any person of Jewish heritage, critical of any association, organisation, instutution or the like with jewish governance is indeed an anti Semite. This bias was for me laughable, but I sat through the paper simply because I could not believe an academic, whom I came across firstly in my Social Work education, actually believed this crap and was trying to sell it to everyone else. It seems everyone in the room bought it hook, line and sinker… everyone except myself and my two friends I had atended with. Mind you, were were in the hall of a jewish synagogue, so not hard for Mendes to find a home for his seriously indulgent and mislead propaganda.
I decided to leave when Mendes suggested it was unhelpful to compare casualty rates with other conflict zones in the world, because all deaths caused by the IDF were insignificant compared to those experienced by other nations.
He thinks he can win and end any argument because if you have a contrary opinion to him, be it fact or fiction, you are an anti Semite.
And that was the Granville train disaster, sorry about the slip of the key to print Glanville.
The reality is if you are not in a place when certain events occur you are not a survivor.
The idiocy of Hitler’s anti-Aryan policy is that my black haired, brown eyed sister and father would have been singled out for persecution and maybe even death while my other sister, my mother and myself who are all blue eyed and blonde would have been ignored.
72 million or so human beings were slaughtered in WW11, why do jews have to be allowed to be the only victims?
It is surely admissable to ask such a question while jews in Israel (94% of the cheered, others set up deck cheers to party when Israel blasted Gaza) persecute and torment Palestinian citizens for 61 years now?
Michael, I did not write the books, I simply read the statistics in the books.
Shimon Peres was in Palestine in 1934, tell me again how he could be a survivor? Or Richard Pratt here who was here in 1938?
Don’t just claim I am insane, and moderators don’t just wipe me off, the books are being written and they show that things are not what they seemed to be.
Imagine how many brilliant people are alive today who might have been dead and celebrate. Sheesh.
I generally don’t get involved in discussions of this type. But the comments by AHIMSA at the bottom are so false as to be laughable. I have never presented this paper - or any paper for that matter - in a synagogue. As an atheist I rarely if ever go to synagogue. The paper has been presented on two occasions only - at a Monash University conference in 2005 in earlier version, and at the Caulfield ALP branch last week. So AHIMSA, whoever she is and if my suspicions are right I am very disappointed, is telling some mighty fibs both about content and location.
Philip Mendes
Anti-Zionism is not the same as criticising the Israeli government and anti-Semitism means the Israeli government (and Jews) have no right to exist. Because there is a fine line between being anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic, and it all comes down to attitude and whether you actually believe in Biblical history, or not. Atheists will never understand Jews, Christians or Muslims for their connections to this particular place and land, some of which (as all good Christians would know) was promised to the Jewish people in the Bible.
And if good Christians know this fact, then they might begin to understand that the Palestinians are not considered the only indigenous people of Israel/Palestine, but that the Jews also consider themselves indigenous to the region. Otherwise where did the Hebrew language come from?
But if you don’t believe or understand the Hebrew Bible, then you probably won’t really understand the way these Jews and Israelis feel about their religious homeland.
And if you don’t understand the emotions involved and don’t know about the passions behind the defense of the Israeli nation, then you’re probably missing the entire point about being a Zionist and/or a Jew.
And therefore your anti-Zionism - with its unfair criticisms of Israeli policy and/or your anti-Semitism - and its outlandish and exaggerated criticisms of Israeli policy, will only fall on deaf ears.
Because those of you who are giving exaggerated and uninformed criticisms about Israel, are not only unhelpful in promelgating misleading information, but cruel and heartless, as all it is going to do, is give the Palestinians false hope in their national cause, as none of you would want to take up arms against the Israelis for them. Or would you?.
And I’d also be careful you’re not seen as inciting more violence against the Palestinians, with your metaphors and comparisons with the NAZI extermination camps, because Hamas has an army and weapons with which your incitements may help bring about even more random violence against Israel, and eventually the Israelis will be fed up and it will all backfire on them again.
Denise that is a hoot. Where are the Hamas tanks, F16 gunships, Apache helicopters, drones, war ships and army?
Grow up dear girl. Are you trying to tell us that by supporting the human rights of Palestinians we are inciting Israel to murder more of them?
Deranged dear.
I think it’s pretty straightforward that Maryj is an illiterate liar.
Consider, for example, her rendition of Finkelstein supporting her case. Now consider a standard formulation of his views, in the unedited version of an interview he gave.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/how-memri-doctored-finkelsteins-intervi…
"Finkelstein: Well, one of the points I make in the book is that there has been a gross inflation of the number of survivors. In fact, as all serious historians have shown, Hitler’s extermination of the Jews was very efficient, it was like a factory, an assembly line: Jews were processed to be murdered. When you have such an efficient system there can’t be very many survivors. In fact, the best estimates show that by May, 1945, that is, at the end of World War II, about 100,000 Jews had survived the concentration camps, the ghettos and the labor camps. If 100,000 Jews survived the camps and ghettos in 1945, then 60 years later, roughly around now, there can’t be more than a few thousand survivors still alive. "
"Finkelstein: I think it’s important to separate the two issues. Number 1, there is the issue of the truth of the Nazi holocaust. In my opinion, rational people will not debate whether the Nazi holocaust happened. Of course the Nazi holocaust happened. It was a colossal crime that was committed against Jews, against Gypsies, against the handicapped, against many peoples. Among those people were the crimes committed, colossal crimes, against the Jews. Roughly speaking, you can say between 5 and 5 1/2 million Jews were exterminated during World War 2. That’s the factual question and rational people, reasonable people, will not debate the factual question."
As to her dubious logic - it would be splendid if 6 million Jews hadn’t been exterminated. Yeah, it would be. It would be nice if my grandmother’s family were alive. But reality is the problem, and you writing grossly falsified accounts of what commentators say about it is offensive and outrageous.
Besides her arrogance. I’m a little surprised to be advised to read books that I have read, which are irrelevant to my contempt for her. Perhaps you should read Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning (etc). Or perhaps, you should learn how to read. Or perhaps, you should strive to overcome your bigotry, then, learn how to read, and then read what scholarship shows.
I won’t respond to you again.
*This comment has been edited
A few corrections and a thankyou for Philip Mendes…
I heard you speak at the Synagogue Hall in Newtown, Nov 10 last year -
http://newtown.shul.org.au/pipermail/shul_news_newtown.shul.org.au/2008-…
The title of your paper was, "Are anti Zionism and anti Semitism the same".
I am not the person you think I may be. I am male. And since it was being filmed, you may like to check your tape and see I was wearing a white shirt and left before my two friends, after you made the remarks I have commented on above. Again, check your tape.
Why not upload the tape and post a link for others to make up there own mind?
And finally, thanks for engaging in this type of discussion. I look forward to reading your reply to Brull’s article.
Hi,
I don’t understand the obsession some people have with wishing to find evidence to downplay the voracity of the nazi regime’s part in genocide in WWII. Millions died, and of those millions, millions were Jews. The desire to downplay the tragedy (specifically for Jews, rather than wishing to bring to public record the perennial ignorance of, for example, the indifference to the sufferings of Gypsys, and others) to me seems similiar to the reactionary approach westerners, particularly western media and govts, employ when reviewing the dead in places where the west is resolutely to blame (like Iraq, Afghanistan).
The only reason why the west is comfortable showing the atrocities related to nazi germany is that in public opinion, those atrocities have forever been relegated to an ‘extinct’ enemy, and the problem passed to the people of Palestine, leaving us safe to feel a contrived contrition for the sins of national socialist Germany and the tragedies they imparted.
Michael, no doubt you are passionate about this for very good reason. But as a writer, you should perhaps be responding to MaryJ’s comments with more than assertions that she should fuck herself. Some of what she wrote is incorrect (and could be proved, with references). Other details of what she wrote is not. Determining the falsities from the truths would be wholly more constructive than simply abandoning your intellect in favour of a shout-down.
As for the vain and hopeless assertion that roads in the west bank are ‘Israeli only’ and not ‘Jew only’, danlew is arguing semantics (whilst pretending he is arguing semitics). The Israeli military believes they are Jew-only (the enforcers), the people of the west bank believe they are Jew-only, and the Arab citizens (regardless of whether they are Israeli or Palestinian) are restricted at the checkpoints in ways which Israeli Jews are not. For all intents and purposes, the segregation is real, and often abominable.
I include links to illustrate this point, from Chomsky to Aloni, and also, most tellingly (I think) the last link, by Dr John Hilley, where he quotes an IDF soldier who likens the checkpoints (with prompting) to echoes of the holocaust machinery of Nazi Germany.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10398.shtml
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475656640&pagename=JPost%…
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel
http://gphrc.org/john%20hilley.html
cheers, Derek
MaryJ,
You’ve poisoned any kind of debate on this article by admitting to Holocaust denial. What could have been a debate on Israeli policies in the West Bank or the labeling of critics of Israel has now turned into your attempts to deligitimise the suffering of millions of Jews; including a great deal of my own ancestors who perished in the Nazi gas chambers.
*This comment has been edited
Michael,
You might want to consider what it is in your writings, that might attract someone like "MaryJ", a South Australian dole bludger who is dedicated to blogging daily about the evils of Israel and Jews, and little else.
Think hard about it mate. She’s also a regular (under her real name mind you) over at your mate Loewenstein’s blog. Does that make you proud? Are you happy with the circles in which you hang?
There’s little point you or I telling her how wrong she is, as she’s merely an angry old boiler who will get more and more upset, eventually swearing like a sailor rather than the 60 year old retiree she should be (if she’d ever had a job).
Marily….err. MaryJ,
You are wrong, as usual, but assuming you believe your own bullshit, it’s okay by you for Saudi Arabia to be 100% Muslim, but not okay for a Jewish state to exist?
Not everyone. Just you darling. And it would seem I am not alone.
Again, you are wrong, but if you do believe your own bullshit, can you explain then why the Palestinians are somehow entitled to it, when the term "Palestinian" was unheard of prior to 1967, yet the Jews who even appear in the Koran (Google Judea one day) are not.
Oh, that’s right, you’re a haggard old antisemite, who will no doubt no take umbrage at being called one, and complain that Jews call everybody an antisemite. Note well, I haven’t called anyone here an antisemite, except you. And you fit the profile well: Angry and alone.
Better go to bed soon, so you can be up at 1am as usual blogging over at The Australian about the Jeeeews…
Derek,
Nonsense.
Mate, it’s real simple. If you are Israeli, you have yellow number plates, whether you are Jewish, Muslim or Jedi and can drive on those roads without hassle.
If you are not Israeli, you can’t.
The accusation of "Jew only roads" is completely baseless as long as 1 Million Arab Israelis can also use the roads freely. I maintain my original demand for you to retract it, but instead you are furiously spinning to try and insist there is somehow no difference between religious discrimination, such as Saudi Arabian Apartheid, and border control.
You were wrong. You cannot possibly prove anything else. Admit it and move on, keeping some form of intellectual dignity. Otherwise you are ultimately no better than
MarilynMaryJ, who has been making up facts for yearsno spin danlew,
read the links, and then provide some of your own to counter them, if you please.
If you want to argue the semantics (spin), then I can’t stop you, but the reality is that every day in the west bank, Palestinians/Arabs are routinely held up and treated like prisoners or dogs (depending on the day and the soldier), and, with disturbing frequency, the ill are left to die in the queue, or shot, by IDF soldiers.
To my recollection, this has never happened in the West Bank to an Israeli Jew.
Rather than being defended on semantic points (points which mean less, effectively, than the reality as phrased by myself and others), it should be an issue of great shame to any supporter of Israel.
With regard to making up facts: "when the term "Palestinian" was unheard of prior to 1967". I assume therefore that subjects within the *British Mandate of Palestine*, instituted in 1920-22, and well documented, with *Palestine* itself existing historically (in name and region) since Roman times, were known by some other name? Perhaps they were referred to as ‘Arabs’, in which case, semantically, you may be right, and therefore, according to your sense of logic, the indigenous people deserve no place in the region for failing to label themselves correctly.
It is this same poisonous style of semantic reasoning devoid of context that is responsible for the similiar genocidal Laissez-fair approach to the indigenous in Australia.
"why the Palestinians are somehow entitled to it, when the term "Palestinian" was unheard of prior to 1967, yet the Jews who even appear in the Koran"
It’s somewhat revealing that on the one hand you’re happy to use a semantically incorrect assessment of Jew-only roads in the west bank to prove your point of racism *against* Jews, and on the other, you show your own reverse sense of the same point, by suggesting that the term Palestinians could refer only to Arab Palestinians. There were indeed Jews in Palestine prior to the Zionist rise in power, but they were *Palestinian* Jews. It is, and was not, an either-or case.
You seem to foster a great bitterness toward Arab Palestinians. Is this evidence of anti-semitism?
cheers, Derek
GrameF.
No. It just shows how bad you are at reading. Go back and review my comments, where I pointed out that there is no such thing as a "Jewish only road", whereas there are Muslim only roads in Saudi Arabia.
There is no similarity at all between the two countries.
However, I see people giving a free pass to the Muslims for things they have done, yet attacking the Jewish state for things it hasn’t done. The motive is pretty obvious.
Dereklane
1) Christian Arab Palestinians have never blown themselves up, and I have no resentment towards them at all. In fact I feel sorry for them, as they are routinely oppressed by Islamist groups, and they attract no sympathy from people like you whatsoever.
2) Newsflash: The term Antisemitism has only ever referred to hatred of Jews. To suggest that Arabs are Semites, and therefore cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, is just stupid. Can’t you people come up with an original line of attack? It’s just pathetic. Really. Straight out of the "Students for Palestine" playbook. No knowledge, no substance, just placards and propaganda. It would be really nice to have a debate with someone who could argue the finer points of Koranic doctrine, yet I feel like I’m getting in a debate with a guy who thinks shouting "la la la la I can’t hear you" is a legitimate argument.
You first sunshine. Give me the name of a single street, in Israel, Gaza, or anywhere on earth that is signposted for "Jews only". I have already provided you evidence of Muslim only roads in Apartheid Saudi Arabia. We are all waiting.
"The term Antisemitism has only ever referred to hatred of Jews."
That’s almost true (recently, the phrase has, in some circles, come to describe racism against all semites), but it shouldn’t be true. In reality, racism abounds the world around (not least *from* many Jews *against* Arabs). That point, I hope, is uncontestable. In my opinion, the term is a misnomer, and should be discouraged, given that those using the term, which appears to assert special characteristics to the type of racist suffering Jews face/have faced over, for example, Gypsies, is a type of racism itself.
I don’t understand the insistence of its use, apart from maintaining the myth that the European holocaust is greater and worse than any other atrocity committed before or after - a myth that has, until recent times, kept the murderous Israeli govt as untouchable. It would be well to do away with the language that allows that untouchability, and replace it with its more easily verifiable synonym of ‘racism’. At least then, all sufferers of it become equal.
"To suggest that Arabs are Semites, and therefore cannot possibly be anti-Semitic, is just stupid."
It would be, but I didn’t suggest that. I merely suggested, that, etymologically (since semantics is the preferred style of argument here), you show a level of enmity towards Palestinians that is as racist as any real anti-semitism. Again, by attempting to argue it from the accepted definition of what constitutes anti-semitism and *who* it applies to (and who it doesn’t apply to), rather than by simply asserting your compassionate desire to see the best done by Palestinians, and not the worst, you’re confirming what is probably obvious to others - that you care a great deal more about anti-semitism against Jews than against Palestinian Arabs.
I have no problem with (intellectually) pulling someone up on their anti-semitic reasoning, except when the stone-caster is a hypocrite.
cheers, Derek
If you don’t read the links, you won’t find the information hidden in them, where IDF soldiers refer to the roads as ‘Jew only’ roads.
So, actually, I have gone first (thanks for the ‘Sunshine’ compliment - people often tell me I light up their life:).
cheers, Derek
If you don’t read the links, you won’t find the information hidden in them, where IDF soldiers refer to the roads as ‘Jew only’ roads.
Uh… The IDF soldiers could refer to them colloquially, or indeed as anything they want, before or after an unreliable translation. It doesn’t somehow prove your point. Yours is hardly a primary source. You really are new to this whole debating thing, aren’t you?
I’ll make it easy. Show me a photograph that says "Jews only". Admittedly it might be easier if you have a copy of Adobe Photoshop. As an aside, the streetsigns in Israel are all in English, Hebrew and Arabic, so make sure you have the right fonts installed!
If you can’t find a photo, no worry. Perhaps a reference in an Israeli street directory which notes "Jews Only".
No?
Well how about a few street names. Jew Street perhaps. Hymie Boulevarde. No? Maybe some other form of credible reference? Good luck mate…
Fact: There are roads in Israel, which are for Israeli vehicles only. They may be freely used by over a million non-Jews, including Arabs. There are no roads anywhere in Israel which discriminate against non-Jews. To suggest this, is a lie.
Fact: There are roads in Saudi Arabia, which are for Muslims only, and forbidden to non-Muslims.
Saudi Arabia, one of the most despotic regimes on Earth, gets a free pass for things it has done.
Israel, the world’s only Jewish state, gets lambasted for things it hasn’t even done.
Derek Lane,
Ya think?
How can you be antisemitic towards a Muslim?
I feel like I’m arguing with a child. How can I have a sensible discussion about antisemitism, with someone who, quite literally, doesn’t know the meaning of the word.
Oh, and by the way, all your arguments about racism are largely irrelevant. There is of course plenty of racism in the Middle East, as everywhere on Earth. Arabs are discriminated against, as are Ethiopian and Russian Jews.
However, my beef is with Islam. I have no problem with the Christian Arabs (refer earlier comments). Islam however is not a race, it is a religion. A belief system, like scientology, voodoo or any other cult.
I could convert to Islam in minutes, without changing race.
A Muslim could also convert away from Islam, although that would make them a candidate for death, which is the prescribed penalty for apostasy within Islam. A large part of why there is so little criticism of Islam from within. Fatwas are funny that way.
Michael Brull and Antony Loewenstein can say whatever they want about Jews, as they know it will never result in them being stabbed or shot. The same simply isn’t true for dissident Muslims, who are truly brave and make those two look like a couple of crybabies.
Danlew,
I often find it far easy to win an argument by framing the bounds of the argument myself. I generally don’t do it, however, because its disingenous, and proves little aside from egotistical musings.
This no doubt applies to your insistence to ignore the reality in favour of the obviously carefully manufactured insistence by Israel and its supporters that it doesn’t resemble an apartheid nations. We all know, of course, what ap[artheid looks like. There are signs which say ‘blacks only’ and ‘whites only’ all around the place, to be photographed and disseminated.
But you, like I, must know that this brand of apartheid is relegated for the most part to history. We *know* what is right and wrong instinctively. That doesn’t stop people from doing wrong, but it does make them less likely to project their actions unambiguously, for the world to make the kind of parallels that a dolt couldn’t miss.
We see this ‘guarded’ racism in action in Australia, and we see it in Israel. It’s not less virulent for the caution, but perhaps moreso, because many people are given the luxury of kidding themselves into the belief that it is all done for rational reasons, which are above and different to simple segregation and destruction of those we hate.
We call it security. Consequently, a Jew only road becomes an ‘Israeli only’ road, nevermind the fact that within Israel, Arabs are second class citizens (again, by deed rather than by legislature, although there are instances of legislature which prove the distinction, for example, national service).
Nevermind the fact, also, that enough evidence has been gathered over the years to show absolute favouritism to Jewish Israelis, and absolute denial to Arab Palestinians and Israelis, to the point of death, in more extreme cases on the Israeli roads through the west bank. The facts remain that on these roads, Jewish Israelis get free passage, whereas Arabs do not. That is apartheid, and I would say (based on national actions elsewhere, like housing, planning, prison quotas, and the reprehensible conduct of the IDF against Palestine itself) that it is *officially* sanctioned, even though in most cases it is not recorded as such.
These nuances of politics can only be overlooked by someone deliberately wishing to overlook them.
"How can you be antisemitic towards a Muslim?
I feel like I’m arguing with a child. How can I have a sensible discussion about antisemitism, with someone who, quite literally, doesn’t know the meaning of the word."
I could equally pose a similiar question with regards to your arguments based on semantics/etymology. It would seem you are unaware of the style of argument you are conducting, and how that differs from one with reason and logic at its core.
"However, my beef is with Islam. I have no problem with the Christian Arabs (refer earlier comments). Islam however is not a race, it is a religion. A belief system, like scientology, voodoo or any other cult."
That’s interesting, because before, your ‘beef’ was with Palestinians (who, according to you, didn’t exists before 1967).
In any case, it poses an interesting question. Were Palestine a muslim nation (inc Israel), all Israelis would at least have a chance at equal status via conversion. Presently, Arab Palestinians have no such chances, because Jewishness is deemed (in the modern day) exclusive.
cheers, Derek
Ahimsa: you didn’t tell me you lived in Sydney not Melbourne. I did present a one-off talk in Sydney last year for the Inner West Chavurah which they hosted in a synagogue hall. Other than that, your description of my arguments and the audience response is complete fiction. The point of my paper is precisely to point out the many occasions when reasonable criticisms of Israel are not anti-Semitic. You need to listen more carefully. Philip
So many semantics and semitics but frankly, to a non-religious, non-political outsider, none of the angst is relevant or helpful to stopping a terrible war. Seems to me that when the arguments become unintelligible (if not downright foolish) to any but the protagonists its time to stop and re-think. Just like in Northern Ireland, these current hatreds arise from the politics of long ago and from really poor decisions made back in history; they would have no power to hurt today if everyone involved decided to be compassionate instead of righteous. Children are being killed and ordinary people are living miserable lives. Stopping that should matter more than being right.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2988
It sounds to me like Ahimsa was listening, Philip.
"The point of my paper is precisely to point out the many occasions when reasonable criticisms of Israel are not anti-Semitic."
Compare this to what it says in the article referenced, written by you (presumably the same one, but largely irrelevant, because they’re still your views):
"It is within the third Left perspective - which I call anti-Zionist fundamentalism - that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism undoubtedly converge. This perspective, held mainly but no longer exclusively by the far Left sects, regards Israel as a racist and colonialist state which has no right to exist."
Firstly, let me say, it is disingenous to group the first 2 tenets with the last. Many people agree with those first two tenets, but believe that either a 2 state solution, or a unified, single state (of Arabs and Jews, and anyone else - much like Australia, for example) should replace the current racist, colonialist model. That isn’t saying Israel has no right to exist. What it is saying is that Israel has no right to make another land and people *cease* to exist, or at least, cease to exist outside of dire poverty in a greatly reduced space to what it needs, without any of the natural resources it needs to survive (like sea rights, water rights, and land rights), which all the evidence points to it attempting to do.
What people are saying is this: Israel is racist and colonialist. It needs to change to some model which is not racist and colonialist. If the defense of Israel is the defense of that which makes Israel tyrannous and murderous to its inhabitants and neighbours, then the supporters of that Israel should be ashamed to support such a beast, not defiant that they should be allowed to. However, if the defense of Israel is the defense of the *people* of Israel, to continue to live in the region, safely, and not be moved on as they have done to the Palestinians, then I would agree that is acceptable. According to the Rome Statute, for good reason, we cannot move people agains their will as a group. This goes as much for Israelis as it does for Palestinians. So they need to learn to live together, and the powerful (Israel) needs to learn that racism and colonialism are unacceptable (as does Australia, incidentally).
I side with Ahimsa on this - your argument outlines acceptable debate as ‘concern’ over certain issues rather than the more appropriate ‘outrage’. How long does one need to be concerned with a nation which has flouted over 30 UN resolutions in its infant life, and killed tens of thousands of Palestinians over that time (and many more indirectly, via blockades etc)? When can that concern acceptably move to another level? Israel is not listening to international law. It does not care about international law. It (rather surprisingly) doesn’t care about the oppression of Palestinians, despite the fact that it even looks like what young Israelis learn at school re the holocaust to its own young IDF soldiers.
So when does it become acceptable to pose another solution? Ahmadinejad suggested giving a vote to all of Palestine (that is Eretz Israel, to the Israel supporters) for the Israeli leadership. Rather sanely, that would solve the problem, because the region would automatically become a democracy.
I’ve proposed similiar radical ideas for both Australia and the UK (reforming the political system to allow democracy, rather than the plutocratic oligarchies we have, and republican ones removed from religion in the administration, and without a birth-right head of state). For it to happen in either place would be nothing short of a revolution, and the people would benefit from the outcome, rather than the usual select few.
Why is it anti-semitic to do the same for israel, given that Israel is actively policing those it doesn’t like (Arab Palestinians) with bombs and bullets and massive open air prisons, and checkpoints on roads that look like (and feel like, so I’m told) abbatoirs, with steel and wire and concrete and people ready to kill?
Surely there is a sense of urgency here to change to a compassionate and democratic system? Many Israelis seem to think so, with many young people actively disengaging from military service (and being locked up for their protest), because they disagree so fundamentally with what the govt of Israel stands for. I, for one, agree with them. I only wish there were more Israelis with the same brave and compassionate mettle, and not so many others willing to disseminate the notion that any serious criticism of Israel amounts to anti-semitism (racism).
cheers, Derek
Nice retreat when presented with facts Mendes.
Why the hell would you assume I was a female from Melbs? Slight case of paranoia?
I think it would enhance the debate of this article if you were to share your paper with NM readers so they can make up their own mind about your dribble… I obviously didn’t listen carefully enough.
Ahimsa - Mendes’ comment toward you was a retreat? He accused you of lying. Your sole response: To slag him off and accuse him of dribble. Classy!
You’re also apparently too incompetent to simply google for his papers on various topics. After insulting him, is there anything else you feel he should do to make your life a bit easier?
danlew - Mendes denied giving the talk. I posted a link to the talk and then Mendes admitted it to giving a "one-off talk in a synagogue hall". I proved that I told the truth, his admission is proof of his "mighty fib". So, yeah I call that a retreat.
Why would I search google for his paper, I have a hard copy from the "one-off talk".
I don’t think you need to defend Mendes. If I were Mendes, I would be particularly worried about having someone such as yourself ‘trying’ to defend me. I just don’t think you’re up to the task. And in point, I did not insult Mendes personally, I made remarks about his views and what he publishes. You on the other hand are into name calling.
I quite like being called, classy!
danlew,
"No. It just shows how bad you are at reading. Go back and review my comments, where I pointed out that there is no such thing as a "Jewish only road", whereas there are Muslim only roads in Saudi Arabia."
Yes there bloody well are Jewish only roads in the West Bank and you denying it only shows how deluded you are. You justify evil with lies and obfuscation. Your hate shows in your inability to deal with the truth. Every criminal self justifies what they do and can usually find someone else of their ilk to provide an false alibi. Your role as alibi is showing distinct unravelling at the edges.
I have no truck with mad mullahs but to punish every living Palestinian on an ongoing basis with violent and murderous actions is a crime against humanity. If the US didn’t want to keep a puppet bully in the middle east the UN would have passed so many sanctions against Israel for their crimes that you could run a coal fired power station for a year on the paperwork alone.
Peace will never be achieved while the supporters of Israel insist on ‘solving’ it by murderous military actions. Peace will never be acheived until supporters of Israel recognise their own lies and hatred. There is a reason healing processes are usually classed a ‘truth and reconcilliation’. Give truth a chance, after you finish swallowing your own bile you might even like it after a while.
Danlaw,
"Again, you are wrong, but if you do believe your own bullshit, can you explain then why the Palestinians are somehow entitled to it, when the term "Palestinian" was unheard of prior to 1967, yet the Jews who even appear in the Koran (Google Judea one day) are not."
Making up your own history is not going to wash withy normal Australians who have had relatives in both Palestinian Campaigns,
1917 and WW2.
Get your facts right mate!… but perhaps integrity is not your game?
GraemeF,
‘Yes there bloody well are Jewish only roads in the West Bank and you denying it only shows how deluded you are.’
Where’s your proof that they are Jewish only? You haven’t provided evidence except your own claims.
GraemeF,
Raffe put it quite succinctly. Shouting louder doesn’t somehow count as proof of your specious claims.
Evidence please. You will of course be wasting your time looking, as there simply isn’t any. It’s a myth, and a particularly foul one at that.
EarnestLee
You haven’t proven a thing. I do not dispute that the area was called Palestine, under the British Mandate. Just as it was called "falastina" by some Romans who wanted to upset the local Jewish population.
However, that doesn’t undermine what I said. The "Palestinian" people, are a political construct, unheard of prior to 1967. Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo. They are Arabs from all around the place.
You cannot, and will not find any reference to "Palestinians" prior to 1967.
As I’ve maintained, if people insist on talking about the past, they should acknowledge that the Palestinians haven’t got one.
If more sensible people want to talk about the future, that’s fine. Indeed, it would be nice if the Palestinians decided to give their children one, instead of teaching them it is good to die for Allah.
Why I need to prove a well known fact is beyond me but just to satisfy some lying criminal associates.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1020-04.htm
"The Israeli newspaper Maariv yesterday said the government quietly gave the military the go-ahead earlier this week for a plan to culminate in barring all Palestinians from roads used by Israelis in the West Bank. "The purpose is to reach, in a gradual manner, within a year or two, total separation between the two populations. The first and immediate stage of separation applies to the roads in the territories: roads for Israelis only and roads for Palestinians only," the newspaper said."
Further proof of obfuscation and lying tactics.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/01/EDKP16PF6S.D…
"The extent of Israel’s brutality against Palestinian civilians in its 22-day pounding of the Gaza Strip is gradually surfacing. Israeli soldiers are testifying to lax rules of engagement tantamount to a license to kill. One soldier commented: "That’s what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn’t have to be with a weapon, you don’t have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him."
…………
Israel’s campaign to rewrite international law to its advantage is deliberate and knowing. As the former head of Israel’s 20-lawyer International Law Division in the Military Advocate General’s office, Daniel Reisner, recently stated: "If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries … International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later, it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy."
In the Gaza fighting, Israel has again tried to transform international law through violations. For example, its military lawyers authorized the bombing of a police cadet graduation ceremony, killing at least 63 young Palestinian men. Under international law, such deliberate killings of civilian police are war crimes. Yet Israel treats all employees of the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip as terrorists, and thus combatants. Secretaries, court clerks, housing officials, judges - all were, in Israeli eyes, legitimate targets for liquidation.
Israeli jurists also instructed military commanders that any Palestinian who failed to evacuate a building or area after warnings of an impending bombardment was a "voluntary human shield" and thus a participant in combat, subject to lawful attack. One method of warning employed by Israeli gunners, dubbed "knocking on the roof," was to fire first at a building’s corner, then, a few minutes later, to strike more structurally vulnerable points. To imagine that Gazan civilians - penned into the tiny Gaza Strip by Israeli troops, and surrounded by the chaos of battle - understood this signal is fanciful at best."
War criminals and their lying supporters should try reality once in a while.
Despite the ‘never teach a pig to sing’ concept I will try again. Do Re Me.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-aparthe…
"Veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle said last night that the restrictions endured by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories was in some respects worse than that imposed on the black majority under white rule in South Africa.
Members of a 23-strong human-rights team of prominent South Africans cited the impact of the Israeli military’s separation barrier, checkpoints, the permit system for Palestinian travel, and the extent to which Palestinians are barred from using roads in the West Bank."
Fa So La Ti
GrameF,
You’ve pointed us to an article which states, very clearly, that they are Israeli-only roads….which is what we’ve been saying all along.
No one denies the fact that there are Israeli-only roads because ‘Israeli-only’ refers to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Bahai drivers with Israeli license plates.
You’re absolutely wrong when you say they are ‘Jewish-only’ and you should admit your mistake and apologise!
Lies and obfuscation from idiots.
Do you really cling to such a pathetic interpretation to support criminal behaviour?