neurodoc: Good tries, but wrong. The answer to today’s Geo quiz is a small country well south of the United States. (You can look it up, as I did when I went to see which 56 countries comprised the Organization of the Islamic Conference learned: 1) in truth, there are only 55 member countries; and, 2) one of the 55 is in our half of the world.)

Interesting that their official web site at the UN does not list Suriname, but then what can you expect from the UN.

Yankev: Michigan, or Minnesota?

Good tries, but wrong. The answer to today’s Geo quiz is a small country well south of the United States. (You can look it up, as I did when I went to see which 56 countries comprised the Organization of the Islamic Conference learned: 1) in truth, there are only 55 member countries; and, 2) one of the 55 is in our half of the world.)

Lebanon is constitutionally frozen into divisions of power directly based on Muslim/Christian split of power.

Turkey, I didn’t include admittedly, because it is not an Arab state. Recent events have me worried for the future.

The exceptions aside- Egypt’s state religion is Islam, Jordan’s state religion is Islam, Saudi Arabia’s state religion is Islam, Iraq’s state religion is Islam, Iran’s state religion is Islam, etc.

My point being- anyone pointing to Israel’s state religion had better have an answer for the other major states in the region.

I never would have guessed that one of the OIC member states is here in the Western Hemisphere

Michigan, or Minnesota?

Cynic: Maybe not avowed in your terms, but surely de facto in terms of the Arab League?

Turkey is neither a member of the Arab League, nor an observer; it is, however, one of the 56 member “states” (“Palestine” is listed as a “state”) of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

(I never would have guessed that one of the OIC member states is here in the Western Hemisphere.)

*Jeremy Ben-Ami denied to Jeffrey Goldberg that J Street had anything to do with the bloggers, saying J Street was only allowing them to use a hotel meeting room at lunch time, when the space would otherwise have gone unused. It is true that the bloggers weren’t part of the “official” program, but J Street did not permit anyone not registered for the meeting to attend the bloggers session and Ben-Ami himself made an appearance during the session, with the bloggers sitting under a J Street banner with the organization’s “Pro-Peace, Pro-Israel” slogan. And even if the session could be seen as “independent” of the organization, as Ben-Ami insisted it was, there was no sense that the bloggers were out of place there ideologically.

Ricardo: Not really. Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the North African countries (especially Tunisia) are not “avowed Islamic states.”

Of course, you are right. Technically, Iran is the only state in that region to declare itself as the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” though Saudi Arabia amounts to a de facto Islamic state save perhaps for the rule of a hereditary monarchy, but does that really detract much if any from the place of Islam there? If Mark Buehner had made a less categoric assertion about the place of Islam in that region how far off the mark would he have been?

Lebanon, a multi-confessional (without Jews) state, might be the biggest exception, but Christians have been leaving it with the result that it is becoming an ever more Muslim state, one in which a very Islamic party (Hezbollah) rivals the central government in power and can take the country to war, as it has done. Turkey is an “avowedly” secular state, but the fear is that it won’t remain so as the current government empowers Islam against the wishes of many. In Syria, the Assads have never allowed any rivals to their power, but I don’t think that can be seen as a denigration of Islam’s place in that country. As for the other Arab (Turkey, of course, non-Arab, like Iran) countries in the region, I don’t know the “official” role of Islam in each, but is there any in which Islam doesn’t effectively eclipse whatever other religions might exist there? Is there any in which non-Muslim communities flourish, or at least don’t experience serious threats from their Muslim neighbors? Not much fun to be a Copt in Egypt, and the Christian population in the Middle East is dwindling. (Most of those countries were made effectively judenrein more than 50 years ago, Turkey and Morocco notable exceptions. Yemen will be soon.) Not much religious pluralism in those parts outside of Israel.

So, if Mark Buehner was reacting to Helena Cobban’s sneering “allegedly ‘Jewish’ state, Israel,” then I think what he is saying is understandable, though perhaps overly broad. Why should the notion of a “Jewish” state with religious minorities within it be unacceptable in the eyes of Cobban and her ilk, when they seem to have no problem with the special status Islam enjoys in the neighboring states.

Ricardo:
Not really.Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the North African countries (especially Tunisia) are not “avowed Islamic states.”

Maybe not avowed in your terms, but surely de facto in terms of the Arab League?

Mark Buehner: Funny that every state in the region (including Iraq) are avowed Islamic states, but that’s not a problem.

Not really. Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the North African countries (especially Tunisia) are not “avowed Islamic states.”

HAMAS claims that the legal age of marriage is 15 and in the picture linked the little girls are actually relatives rather than brides.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=106002
HAMAS opposed raising the legal age of marriage from 15:
http://www.advocacynet.org/resource/783

Mark Buehner: Hey Israel– when did you stop beating your wife?

Anderson can tell you the answer to that one — it was obviously just after Israel stopped selling US state secrets.

People make unfounded accusations about other countries all the time.

That doesn’t make an unfounded accusation about Israel a “blood libel,”

Correct. It makes it an ordinary libel, or at best an unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusation.

This refusal to consider the merits — and to dismiss anything like the Goldstone Report on ad hominem grounds, rather than refute it on its merits —

What planet are you on? The Goldstone report has been refuted on its merits (or lack thereof) by numerous people at numerous web sites and publications. Among the documented defects in the report are the commission’s refusal to consider testimony from those affected by the Hamas rocket attacks, its refusal to consider Israel’s operation in the context of a continuing campaign of terror attacks, the uncritical acceptance of absurd claims from witnesses known to have a history of making false and absured charges, its distortion of international law and standards, its having been stacked with members hostile to Israel’s very existence, and the participation of “judges” who announced the verdict shortly after the commission was named and before any evidence had been received.

You might have noticed there are a few lawyers around here, and any of them will tell you that defects of this type will invalidate the findings of any tribunal. Anyone who claims that the Goldstone report was rejected on ad hominem grounds and not refuted on its merits casts severe doubt on his grasp of those terms.

That doesn’t make an unfounded accusation about Israel a “blood libel,” and saying otherwise indicates that the speaker hopes to win on rhetorical tricks, not on the merits.

Well- obviously there is an element of hyperbole here, but in the context of the ‘Jewish Cabal’ in Washington, and the selling of our secrets to enemies in wartimes, i’d say it isn’t overspeaking much.

Of course the overt enemies including Hamas literally proclaim a blood libel all the time. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a hot ticket in the middle east to this day, so lets not pretend Israel isn’t the subject of outrageous lies the world over.

This refusal to consider the merits

What merits? All I saw were accusations.

and to dismiss anything like the Goldstone Report on ad hominem grounds, rather than refute it on its merits — does not inspire confidence in those wondering which side’s in the right. Frankly, it’s the kind of tactic I would expect more from the supporters of Hamas et al. than from supporters of a Western-style democracy under the rule of law.

Oh, the same report that Goldstone himself initially rejected because it was intended to search out solely Israeli warcrimes? Gee, who could think that kind of infrastructure might be geared against Israel from the get-go? Hey Israel- when did you stop beating your wife?

And considering what you seem to expect from Hamas, considering they are the elected leaders of Gaza, why are you holding them to a different standard at all?

A better question is why should anyone take the UNs treatment of Israel seriously to begin with? How many resolutions have been passed condemning Israel, compared to say, ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD? Rwanda, the Balkans, Grozni, Tibet, Sudan, Somalia… name me an embattled region that has received the scrutiny Israel has and then we can talk about fair and balanced.

That doesn’t make an unfounded accusation about Israel a “blood libel,” and saying otherwise indicates that the speaker hopes to win on rhetorical tricks, not on the merits.

This refusal to consider the merits — and to dismiss anything like the Goldstone Report on ad hominem grounds, rather than refute it on its merits — does not inspire confidence in those wondering which side’s in the right. Frankly, it’s the kind of tactic I would expect more from the supporters of Hamas et al. than from supporters of a Western-style democracy under the rule of law.

What? Pointing out that Israel has spied on America and sells our secrets for gain is blood libel?

I don’t doubt Israel has spied on America (and vice-versa). That they have sold our secrets to our enemy for profit- there-in lies the blood libel. Care to prove it?

Might as well round it out with another blood libel I suppose. The only thing you forgot was baking childrens blood.

What? Pointing out that Israel has spied on America and sells our secrets for gain is blood libel? When they are currently pushing as hard as they can to have an American government employee spy released so that he can live a life of reward for his treason, over in the country that awarded him citizenship? Am I warming up the ovens or pointing out a fact? Must be both.

Dude, I am German-American, and I love beer and brats, but I also admit when they do stuff wrong –and I admit that the east, where my family came from, is all kinds of screwed up. I freely admit they loved kissing commie butt and they built building and infrastructure that was worse than bad.

By the same token, when someone points out a fact about your family’s ‘old country’, and the fact is true, yelling “racist” isn’t really helping your argument.

Like I said, I am not in love with either side over there. I do like truth, though.

Ah, that does make sense as well, probably more sense. Thanks!

She also took the word of a Syrian official who claimed that Jews were well treated in Syria. She has been promoting Donald Bostrom’s blood libel.

For these reasons an more she was recently appointed Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest (CNI). Here’s a nice backgrounder on CNI. If before Cobban was a freelance antisemite; now she’s an institutional one, fronting an organization that is rabidly anti-Israel (and, thus, antisemitic). These are people who deride supporters of Israel as supporting Israal, “right or wrong” when they themselves, believe, “Israel always wrong.”

Of course Jews must feel that there is something special about themselves when they and Israel are held to double standards as their experience in the world at the hands of the other earthlings shows.
When levels of behaviour not attainable normally by the other are demanded of the Jew then the Jew must be special.

Most people in the west have been wilfully mis- or dis-informed about Hamas and believe either that it is made up of wild-eyed men of violence who perpetrate violence for its own sake, or that its main goal is the violent expulsion of all Jewish people from Israel/Palestine. (Emphasis added by Yankev

Here I will give her credit where it is due; Hamas’ charter suggests that its main goal is not the violent expulsion of all Jewish people from Israel/Palestine, but rather the extermination of Jewish people everywhere. Or is this not what Ms. Cobban was referring to?

Mark Buehner: Ah, the waft of antisemitism that inevitably seeps through.

Well, he denied being antisemetic but did not say a thing about whether he is anti-semitic.

Here is a link to the AP photo and caption. If there is deception, I was deceived.

Modern Jews are under no compulsion to endorse everything said in the Tanakh, but I fail to see how ascribing a self-estimation as “special” to the Jews can remotely be described as “anti-Semitic.”

Anderson, if you are reading your Tanakh accurately, you know that it imposes special obligations on Jews as a result of the covenant between them and G-d; it does not say that Jews are exempt from moral standards. To claim that it does is to buy into an anti-semitic canard popularized over two millennia by the church, and beloved today of such fair-minded and accurate theologians as James Earl Carter.

Anderson: I’m sorry; I don’t understand which part of this statement the post disagrees with.

The part where she says that Israel’s defenders disagree with the vast majority of people on earth on these points, and consider Palestinians less than fully human and less worthy of compassion than Jews.

Yankev: It’s also nothing remotely like DB’s argument.

Are you suggesting that Daniel, the orthographically challenged “logician,” is incapable of correctly stating someone else’s argument before trying to rebut it? Careful, Yankev, that may be seen as ad hominem by him.

I also think the reason we support Israel is because there are so many Jews in powerful government, academic, and media positions here that demand that support for Israel even at the cost of America getting harmed.

I am reminded of a line or two from Mask of Zorro.

Soldier at guardpost “But we thought your hands were tied.”

One of the Murietta brothers (I forget which) “That is because you are an idiot.”

DangerMouse: Frankly, it’s amazing that anyone thinks that the Palestinians are deserving of our understanding, let alone compassion.

What’s amazing to me is that the so-called human rights community refuses to see that Israel has displayed a good deal more concern for the life, health, safety and well being of the Palestinians than the Palestinian leadership does, to say nothing of the numerous Arab and Muslim countries who use them as a pawn in their power politics and a stick with which to beat Israel. It wasn’t Israel that kept them in camps for 19 years, or who uses them as human shields and human bombs. It was Israel who saw to it that hospitals and schools were built in the captured territories, and who insisted on free universal public education, and who greatly increased the educational level, health care, literacy rates and standard of living among the Arab population it suddenly inherited in 1967. These gains steadily increased until the beginning of the first intifada. Being a Palestinian in Israel is certainly no picnic, but much of that is due to being a hostile enemy population that refuses to make peace.

Daniel: Her comments are somehow anti-semetic because she’s making them as a Christian? That’s patent nonsense.

It’s also nothing remotely like DB’s argument. But why are people who spout or — in Daniel’s case — defend anti-semitic drivel almost uniformly incapable of spelling anti-semitic? Fear that someone will accuse them of being a right wing ultra-orthograph fanatic?

Anderson:… I’m not sure what to make of “their allegedly ‘Jewish’ state, Israel,” though it seems to mean that she thinks Israel actually fails to live up to what she would consider more truly Jewish standards of justice and ethics. I’m not sure in what other sense she could mean to imply that Israel is not, of all things, “Jewish.”

I think it can be understood to mean that Cobban wishes for a so-called “binational” state, something about as fanciful as unicorns, rather than two separate nations; and/or she is protesting Netanyahu’s insistence that the Palestinians acknowledge that Israel exists as a Jewish state.

Anderson: but rather “specialness” in terms of exemption from the normal laws of war and humanity, with licesnse to treat the enemy as sub-human… And you *really* think there is no evidence of such behavior in the Tanakh? Come now, sir. Have you read the book?

Probably more than you.

The short answer to your question is: NO. What is set forth in Tanakh treats one’s enemy mercilessly because he is an enemy, not sub-human. It has nothing to do with the Jewish people’s status as the Holy nation. If you want to say that war in ancient times was harsher than today, that’s one thing. There are plenty of sources for that besides Tanakh — the Romans were hardly models of humane treatment in war.

Cobban is claiming something else: that Jews (or some Jews) feel they are special and can therefore their enemies as sub-human. That you will be hard pressed to prove a source for in traditional Jewish texts.

The Watcher: I really don’t care much about either side over there. I think a lot of America’s troubles in the middle east and with terror here at home are because we support Israel.

In about the same sense that Britains troubles on the continent came from supporting Poland I suppose. The rest of the muslim world is more than upfront telling the world that their problem with what is happening to the Palestinians is symbolic, not physical. The way fellow Arabs have treated Palestinians refugees is proof enough of that. If Israel wasn’t available as a sufficient symbol of Muslim angst at their diminished role in the world, another symbol would be easily forthcoming. Perhaps Spain, as Bin Ladin suggested.

I also think the reason we support Israel is because there are so many Jews in powerful government, academic, and media positions here that demand that support for Israel even at the cost of America getting harmed.

Ah, the waft of antisemitism that inevitably seeps through. Were someone to suggest we supply aid to an African nation because our president is black, they wouldn’t be welcome in polite company. But the age old slur against the Jewish Cabal is always welcome.

As far as being mean to each other, Israel uses arty, air strikes, and killdozers, Palestinians use cheap rockets and human bombs. That’s a tie for me.

Israel targets people that are shooting at them. Palestinians go out of their way to target women and children. If you don’t see that difference I don’t know what to tell you. Hamas would level Tel Aviv if they had the capacity. Israel could level the Gaza strip (a lot more easily than bothering with all the targetted strikes), but they have chosen not to. Again, I’m sure that flies right over your head.

As far as harming America directly, Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened and encourage Muslim terror strikes on us, Israel spies on America and then sells our information to our enemies for advantage. Again, a wash.

Might as well round it out with another blood libel I suppose. The only thing you forgot was baking childrens blood.

So there you have it. For Anderson (like Cobban) Joshua exterminated the Canaanites, therefore it’s not unreasonable to think that HRW founder Robert Bernstein might believe that Israel has license to do that to the Palestinians. In other words the question is whether Bernstein is a “good jew” like Yglesias or a bad jew like many others.

Welcome to the contemporary left.

… And you *really* think there is no evidence of such behavior in the Tanakh? Come now, sir. Have you read the book?

Is it that difficult to criticize people for what they say, instead of what you pretend they say? Perhaps this “discussion” activity isn’t really your forte?