Anti-Zionism v Anti-Semitism

[LongBombFromOutside50]

I am starting this thread due to the confusion surrounding the title of my other thread.

Please read the whole post to get an idea of the difference between the two. It includes many quotes which are of value.

Anti-Zionism: "The conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation." (i.e. opposition to the existence of the State of Israel) - The Society for Rational Peace

Anti-Semitism: "Hostility or prejudice towards Jews as a religious, racial or ethnic group."

NOTE (please read to avoid confusion):
Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are NOT antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism. Yehuda Bauer articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to."

The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews ALONE, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism


Anti-Zionism v Anti-Semetism: Are they the same thing? (different interpretations)

Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth)
"I see three distinct positions: 1) legitimate criticism of Israel, 2) anti-Zionism and 3) anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism can certainly become a form of anti-semitism when it becomes an attack on the collective right of the Jewish people to defensible space. If any people in history have earned the right to defensible space it is the Jewish people. But anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. We're hearing more voices in Britain now who are denying Israel's right to exist and I have to fight that - but I don't confuse that with an assault on me as the bearer of a religious tradition."

However, today's anti-Semitism has three components:

• No. 1: Anti-Zionism - the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves.

• No. 2: Believing that all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.

• No. 3: Believing that Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism."

Yehuda Bauer:
"If you advocate the abolition of Israel...that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish."


Thomas Friedman:
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".


In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) of European Union, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. They developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic. The definition states:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

• However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_Anti-Semitism


So does being an anti-Zionist mean that you are also anti-Semitic? As is outlined by the quotes above, opinions are divided on this issue, however it is clear that anti-Zionism requires something over and above 'mere criticism' of Israel, and for many people, the modern interpretation of anti-Semitism seems to require something more than the belief that Israel has no right to exist (see Sack's interpretation above).

The extreme anti-Zionists on this board (you know who you are) need to realise that anti-Zionism is just as (if not more) discriminatory towards the Jews and Israelis as Zionism is towards the Muslims and Arabs.

 

[Suspense]

I am starting this thread due to the confusion surrounding the title of my other thread.

Please read the whole post to get an idea of the difference between the two. It includes many quotes which are of value.

Anti-Zionism: "The conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation." (i.e. opposition to the existence of the State of Israel) - The Society for Rational Peace

Anti-Semitism: "Hostility or prejudice towards Jews as a religious, racial or ethnic group."

What am I if I acknowledge Israel's right to exist, but do not recognise their right to steal land from their neighbours and perform acts of terrorism in the name of god, even though their god opposes all of the above?

 

[kimirocks]

I (as i understand it to be) am not a racist person, in that I believe that everybody should be treated equally, it doesn't matter what colour, religion, or sex you are. However I have no issue in stating that I am anti-Zionistic to the point of Israel should not be a nation in Palestine. I have great compassion for the Palestinians, and see no reason as to why the Israelis can take a moral high ground over this issue. I have no issue with the people themselves, but take a huge issue to how it all came about. And for this, I support the British and not the American views. It was Arab land, and it was taken by Jews who fled Europe (although many Jews already resided quite peacefully in Palestine). How harsh is it, in these days to simply take a peoples land from somebody and give it to another group of people, who in turn have only persecuted those (the Palestinians) after being persecuted themselves.

As a result of this belief and opinion, I also believe that if the state of Israel was not created, we would not have half of this issues that we have today with the Israeli wars with the Arab nations. Terrorism has been sparked because of this (although it existed beforehand in a more watered down state) and it looks like it could lead to the end of humanity (harsh but quite possible). If we could eliminate the Jewish Israelis (4 million or so people) in a bid to save the rest of the world, I would do it in a flash, as I can't see them all leaving to go and live in the United States. Otherwise we seem to be on a path to neverending conflict (contradictory, but the only thing that will end it is complete and utter annihilation), which is a sad thing in itself. I know that they have a religious tie to the land of Israel/ Palestine, but surely if they want peace they will return to the state of being a people with no land, there will be no persecution, the Palestinians just want their land back. Somebody has to be the bigger man.

There is a road to peace, and the Israeli- Lebanese War just shows that the road has been bombed, and may never be repaired.

 

[LongBombFromOutside50]

What am I if I acknowledge Israel's right to exist, but do not recognise their right to steal land from their neighbours and perform acts of terrorism in the name of god, even though their god opposes all of the above?

Read my entire inital post, not just the part you quoted. Pay particular attention to Thomas Friedman's quote.

 

[LongBombFromOutside50]

I (as i understand it to be) am not a racist person, in that I believe that everybody should be treated equally, it doesn't matter what colour, religion, or sex you are. However I have no issue in stating that I am anti-Zionistic to the point of Israel should not be a nation in Palestine. I have great compassion for the Palestinians, and see no reason as to why the Israelis can take a moral high ground over this issue. I have no issue with the people themselves, but take a huge issue to how it all came about. And for this, I support the British and not the American views. It was Arab land, and it was taken by Jews who fled Europe (although many Jews already resided quite peacefully in Palestine). How harsh is it, in these days to simply take a peoples land from somebody and give it to another group of people, who in turn have only persecuted those (the Palestinians) after being persecuted themselves.

As a result of this belief and opinion, I also believe that if the state of Israel was not created, we would not have half of this issues that we have today with the Israeli wars with the Arab nations. Terrorism has been sparked because of this (although it existed beforehand in a more watered down state) and it looks like it could lead to the end of humanity (harsh but quite possible). If we could eliminate the Jewish Israelis (4 million or so people) in a bid to save the rest of the world, I would do it in a flash, as I can't see them all leaving to go and live in the United States. Otherwise we seem to be on a path to neverending conflict (contradictory, but the only thing that will end it is complete and utter annihilation), which is a sad thing in itself. I know that they have a religious tie to the land of Israel/ Palestine, but surely if they want peace they will return to the state of being a people with no land, there will be no persecution, the Palestinians just want their land back. Somebody has to be the bigger man.

There is a road to peace, and the Israeli- Lebanese War just shows that the road has been bombed, and may never be repaired.

Like it or not, the State of Israel WAS created. The circumstances in its creation could have been better, but no one has the ability to go back in time and change that.

Palestine was BRITISH land before 1948, with both Jews, Muslims and other minorities (such as Druze, Bedoins, Christians) residing there. Israel only occupies about 10% of the Middle-East, the rest are occupied by Muslim countries. There are enough Muslim countries in the the Middle-East, and of all religions, the Jews also deserve a right to have their own homeland.

If we could eliminate the Jewish Israelis (4 million or so people) in a bid to save the rest of the world, I would do it in a flash

 

[camsmith]

If we could eliminate the Jewish Israelis (4 million or so people) in a bid to save the rest of the world, I would do it in a flash

Better bring Hitler back to life then.

 

[moistie]

You couldn't have just posted this in the other thread in stead of spamming the board with Zionist/Jewish threads? It's exactly the same topic and should be discussed in the existing thread.

 

[Suspense]

Read my entire inital post, not just the part you quoted. Pay particular attention to Thomas Friedman's quote.

I read it and it is a fair statement, though I do wonder if we are talking about criticizing on proportion, then the definition should go either way, correct?

"Criticizing Arabic Nations is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Arabic Nations for opprobrium and international sanction out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".

I have grave concerns about both Israel and Hezbollah's actions. However, the only reason it would seem that I favour one side, is when I see statements that claim that Hezbollah are terroists and Israel is just defending themselves, I must disagree.

If we are talking about criticizing on proportion, then it must apply to all persons, not just those criticizing Israel.

As far as I'm concerned,
Hezbollah and Hamas' (though I am absolutley rapt that Hamas has shown deviation from their stance) cause to destory Israel is wrong.
Extreme Zionists' cause to remove all the arabs from Israel/Palestine is wrong.
Hezbollah and Hamas' calls for Israel to give back their illegally occupied land is just.
Zionists' cause for a right for Israel to exist is just.

The victors and losers of this war has already been decided. Israel, though they may blow Lebanon into oblivion, will lose a great deal of public support for their actions. The Lebanese civilians will lose everything. Hezbollah will gain the most from this war. When Israel finally withdraws from Lebanon without wiping out Hezbollah, they can play themselves off as heroes to the war-weary and angry Lebanese civilians who were the primary victims of the invasion. From the rubble, with rekindled hatred towards Israel, Hezbollah will garner more support and fresh recruits. The cycle contiinues, nothing is solved.
In this war, it's not who has the biggest bombs or more casualties that will decide the victors, it is a battle of ideologies and this war will only strengthen Hezbollah's cause.

I'm off to the pub.

 

[kimirocks]

Like it or not, the State of Israel WAS created. The circumstances in its creation could have been better, but no one has the ability to go back in time and change that.

Palestine was BRITISH land before 1948, with both Jews, Muslims and other minorities (such as Druze, Bedoins, Christians) residing there. Israel only occupies about 10% of the Middle-East, the rest are occupied by Muslim countries. There are enough Muslim countries in the the Middle-East, and of all religions, the Jews also deserve a right to have their own homeland.

Before 1948, palestine was by no means perfect, and obviously neither was Europe, it was quite ****ed to be honest. It may have been British land, but like India, it was a colony. It was Palestinian land, the land of the Palestinian people. It would be as if The UN suddenly proclaimed that Australia was now Israel and that all these Jews were to come live here because of what happened to them under Hitler and the Nazis. it is quite obvious that you are an israeli sympathist, and I am an Arab symphatist. But just because all the other land around it is Arab country (It is not Muslim as you said) doesn't mean that Israel has any right to exist. It was formed merely out of sympathy to the Jews for what happened in Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia etc. I am not a religious person, which gives me a better, unbiased (in religious stakes) view of the situation. If the state of Israel was not created, it is highly likely that we would not be having this thread right now. There would be tension in the area as has been for thousands of years, but the intensity of this would be nye on a 1/4 of what there is today.

 

[chiangmaipie]

I am starting this thread due to the confusion surrounding the title of my other thread.

Please read the whole post to get an idea of the difference between the two. It includes many quotes which are of value.

Anti-Zionism: "The conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation." (i.e. opposition to the existence of the State of Israel) - The Society for Rational Peace

Anti-Semitism: "Hostility or prejudice towards Jews as a religious, racial or ethnic group."

NOTE (please read to avoid confusion):
Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are NOT antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism. Yehuda Bauer articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to."

The term anti-Semitism has historically referred to prejudice towards Jews ALONE, and this was the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism


Anti-Zionism v Anti-Semetism: Are they the same thing? (different interpretations)

Jonathan Sacks (Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth)
"I see three distinct positions: 1) legitimate criticism of Israel, 2) anti-Zionism and 3) anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism can certainly become a form of anti-semitism when it becomes an attack on the collective right of the Jewish people to defensible space. If any people in history have earned the right to defensible space it is the Jewish people. But anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. We're hearing more voices in Britain now who are denying Israel's right to exist and I have to fight that - but I don't confuse that with an assault on me as the bearer of a religious tradition."

However, today's anti-Semitism has three components:

• No. 1: Anti-Zionism - the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves.

• No. 2: Believing that all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.

• No. 3: Believing that Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism."

Yehuda Bauer:
"If you advocate the abolition of Israel...that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish."


Thomas Friedman:
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest".


In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) of European Union, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. They developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic. The definition states:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

• However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_Anti-Semitism


So does being an anti-Zionist mean that you are also anti-Semitic? As is outlined by the quotes above, opinions are divided on this issue, however it is clear that anti-Zionism requires something over and above 'mere criticism' of Israel, and for many people, the modern interpretation of anti-Semitism seems to require something more than the belief that Israel has no right to exist (see Sack's interpretation above).

The extreme anti-Zionists on this board (you know who you are) need to realise that anti-Zionism is just as (if not more) discriminatory towards the Jews and Israelis as Zionism is towards the Muslims and Arabs.

Palestinians are semetic as are Lebansese christians! The definiton of what constitute being a semite includes Jews, Muslims and Christians.

 

[MSR273]

What am I if I acknowledge Israel's right to exist, but do not recognise their right to steal land from their neighbours and perform acts of terrorism in the name of god, even though their god opposes all of the above?

Just another lefty clone.

 

[skilts]

Those of the Jewish persuasion have provided humanity with some of its finest minds. The people who are currently running Israel are not among them.

 

[medusala]

Anti-Zionism: "The conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation." (i.e. opposition to the existence of the State of Israel) - The Society for Rational Peace
.

Very poor definition:

Just because one believes that Israel doesnt have a right to exist (which of course it doesnt) doesnt mean that one that one is opposed to the state of Israel.

The amount of nonsensical propaganda sprouted on this topic is unbelieavable.

How can one argue that the Jewish religion deserves a homeland? Does Zoroastrianism deserve a homeland? What nonsense.

The only argument Israel has is one of possession. The more people try to argue otherwise the more ridiculous they look.

 

[Richo83]

Very poor definition:

Just because one believes that Israel doesnt have a right to exist (which of course it doesnt) doesnt mean that one that one is opposed to the state of Israel.

The amount of nonsensical propaganda sprouted on this topic is unbelieavable.

How can one argue that the Jewish religion deserves a homeland? Does Zoroastrianism deserve a homeland? What nonsense.

The only argument Israel has is one of possession. The more people try to argue otherwise the more ridiculous they look.

Exactly. Why do Israelis have a right to the "holy land" when technically, christianity and islam have claims to the land as well? Both have major scriptures that tell them that it is their land, and both have major religious artefacts, buildings etc. that they cliaim to have a right to have possesion over (Even though, in instances, they don't).

BTW, where would Zoroastrians home land be if they did have one, hypothetically?

 

[Solace]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

Yeah whats the difference? And try not to mention the words 'god', 'chosen' or 'people'. Ok you can use 'people'.

 

[Richo83]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

Don't forget redlegs too.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

Double standards?

Hypocrisy?

 

[khanate]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

wow...that was awesome...

i can't wait to use this on a jerk i work with. you're my hero.

 

[XXX KINGS]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

I think you might have made perhaps a slight boo-boo there

 

[LongBombFromOutside50]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

No, I've got a better idea. Any Australians on here believing that Israel does not have the right to exist, please be aware that the Aboriginies, still hellbent on obtaining "redemption" of their indigenous land from many decades ago and the elimination of all 'European' Australians (all of whom had nothing to do with the 'taking over' of Australia from the Aboriginees), are preparing to launch an attack on your country from heavily populated areas.

According to your beliefs, you will fully support the attacks of the Aboriginal people and will not be able to defend the destruction of your country or eliminate the artillery sites where the missiles are being fired from.

Now, who will stand up for what they believe?

Solace?
Just Maybe?
Murray?
???????

 

[dan warna]

No, I've got a better idea. Any Australians on here believing that Israel does not have the right to exist, please be aware that the Aboriginies, still hellbent on obtaining "redemption" of their indigenous land from many decades ago and the elimination of all 'European' Australians (all of whom had nothing to do with the 'taking over' of Australia from the Aboriginees), are preparing to launch an attack on your country from heavily populated areas.

According to your beliefs, you will fully support the attacks of the Aboriginal people and will not be able to defend the destruction of your country or eliminate the artillery sites where the missiles are being fired from.

Now, who will stand up for what they believe?

Solace?
Just Maybe?
Murray?
???????

the Australian government over the past 30 years have given indiginous australians far more rights and returned land to them.

the israeli government has not recompensed the hundreds of thousands of people illegally evicted from their homes and farms.

THe indiginous australians were poorly treated for over a century and were refused the right to citizenship and the vote, this has been redressed and the australian court system acknowledge indiginous australians as the original owners of the land.

 

[MSR273]

Thats great. Anyone on here beleiving that that the zionist state has a right to exist, please leave you name, phone number and address on this forum for the nearest aboriginee. You will vacate your homes once the aborginee arives and go back to wherever you lived 3000 years ago. Should you not, then you are a hypocrite.

Now, who will stand up for what they beleive????

camsmith?
MSR273?
|D_J^B_J|?
jane?
???????????

Hmmmm, Israel is a recognised nation, therefore it has a right to exist. I couldn't care less about 3000 yrs ago. And if an Aboriginal turns up on my doorstep and makes a good offer to obtain my house, as I did, he can have it. Fair enough?

BTW, I have no idea where my ancestors lived 3000yrs ago, what do I do ??

 

[LongBombFromOutside50]

the Australian government over the past 30 years have given indiginous australians far more rights and returned land to them.

the israeli government has not recompensed the hundreds of thousands of people illegally evicted from their homes and farms.

THe indiginous australians were poorly treated for over a century and were refused the right to citizenship and the vote, this has been redressed and the australian court system acknowledge indiginous australians as the original owners of the land.

So you are suggesting that because the Israeli government have not compensated the Arab Israelis to the degree which you would have liked, they do not have the right to defend their citizens from terrorist attacks (citizens which had nothing to do with evicting the Palestinians from their land)?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Quoted from another thread (take note of the bolded text):

Can you please elaborate on these 'racist laws' you speak of? I was in Israel last year and there are over 1.2 million Muslims peacefully living there.

Here are some of the Israeli laws that promote equal rights between the Jews and Muslims that live there. Just to name a few:

• Unlike other Middle-Eastern countries, upon entering Israel you are not asked for your religion.

• Both Muslims and Jews have the right to vote and be elected into public office. Israel is also one of the few countries in the Middle-East where Muslim women can vote.

• Israeli health standards are by far the highest in the Middle-East and health institutions are open equally to Muslims and Jews. As in Australia, emergency treatment for ill-health is based on the severity of the need for treatment, and no discrimination occurs between religion or gender.

• The Israeli government fosters the language, culture and traditions of the Arab minority. Street signs have their names in Hebrew and Arabic, there are daily TV and radio programs in Arabic as well as Arabic periodicals.

• Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of religion or gender.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5543757&postcount=14

As you can see above, equal rights certainly do exist in Israel, and the extent of the discrimination is certainly not as severe as some on this board would have you believe.

 

[Suspense]

Just another lefty clone.

|D_J^B_J|, does Thomas Friedman's definiton go both ways? I think the very nature of it suggests that the definition, itself, is anti-semite. After all aren't talking about a fair and equal proportion of criticism or defense of all parties involved in the middle-east? The fact that it singles out those who criticize Israel and not those who criticize the other parties of the middle-east, would support such a suggestion.