pageok
pageok
pageok
HITLER'S LEGACY: ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST:

A transcript of a very informative lecture by Matthias Kuentzel. A short synopsis can't do the lecture justice, but the basic point is that while there was always anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world, it also was based on the notion of Jews as an inferior group that Mohammed had defeated militarily. Anti-Semitic visions of powerful Jews being behind the world's problesm, and plotting to control the world, found most prominently in the Hamas charter, entered the Muslim world via the Muslim Brotherhood, who in turn took those ideas from the Nazis, which spent significant effort and money propagating them in the Middle East. This all started well before the creation of the State of Israel, belying the notion that the Israel-Palestinian conflict caused modern Muslim anti-Semitism. Thanks to Scholars for Peace in the Middle East for the pointer.

UPDATE: Commenters are missing the point. Islamists hate the Spanish for ruling Spain, hate the Christian minority in Arab countries, hate the Hindus who (re)conquered India from the Muslims, hate the Bahais, the Druze, and, if they're Sunni, Shiites, and so forth. And Jews were always second-class citizens in Muslim countries, though precise treatment varied from era to era, and from country to country. But there is nothing in Islam or Islamic history to explain the virulent, Protocols-style "the Jews are out to dominate the world" style of anti-Semitism that is currently prevalent in the Islamic world, unless you go to Western influences, primarily Naziism (though Soviet propaganda, not mentioned by Kuentzel, didn't help).

Nor can this be explained as a mere outgrowth of Arab nationalism regarding Zionism. Arabs aren't too fond of other ethnic groups with which they have or have had territorial conflicts, including Kurds, Africans, Persians, Europeans, and so forth. But you don't see the kind of nonsense you find in the Hamas charter directed at such groups.

One thing that I don't think Kuentzel says directly, but I think logically follows from his lecture, is that the Muslim Brotherhood not only picked up certain anti-Semitic ideas from the Nazis, but its leaders also learned from the Nazis the effectiveness of using anti-Semitism as a political tool to rally the masses and promote their form of nationalism.

That's not to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict doesn't foment anti-Semitism in the Arab world. But to acknowledge that doesn't detract from a complementary point, which is that the Arab-Israeli conflict would be less severe but for the widespread notion in the Arab/Muslim world that that conflict isn't about "Palestine," per se, but about resistance from Arabs and Muslims to a Jewish-Zionist plot to take over the entire Middle East, and ultimately dominate the world.

Pitman (mail) (www):
An interesting and disturbing book on this topic is Bernard Lewis's Semites and Anti-Semites.
10.17.2007 11:00pm
U-M 3L:
**Coming from someone who generally supports Israel**

Anti-Semitism having seeped into the Muslim world from Nazi propaganda beginning in the 1930s is hardly groundbreaking, and does not belie that Muslims, while contemptuous of both Jews and Christians, treated religious minorities relatively well until mass Jewish migration to Palestine.

Kuntzel comes off in the lecture as the typical Israeli scholar-apologist.
10.17.2007 11:14pm
LM (mail):

Anti-Semitism having seeped into the Muslim world from Nazi propaganda beginning in the 1930s is hardly groundbreaking, and does not belie that Muslims, while contemptuous of both Jews and Christians, treated religious minorities relatively well until mass Jewish migration to Palestine.

Relative to what?
10.18.2007 12:01am
sashal (mail):
and what legacy Hitler inherited ?
Did Hitler invent anti-Semitism, or was it wide spread in Europe even before Hitler came to power. And did he has fertile grounds for that ?

Historically majority of Muslim did not know that feeling- anti-semitism, at least comparable in it's intensity and disastrous implementations to European's one. At least not untill 1948..
10.18.2007 12:28am
Benjamin Davis (mail):
Why not go back to Muhammad's agreement with the Jews in Medina? That would be far more important than transient Western propaganda coming from the Nazis in the 1930's. Does anyone know that history? I read about it in a book by Maxine Rodinson called Muhammad but I do not remember it all.
Best,
Ben
10.18.2007 12:31am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Relative overall to how the Christian West treated Jews, yes. Relative to how they treated Jews after 1947, yes. Relative to standards of civilized decency, no. The myth of Jews, Christians and Muslims living happily together before the Zionists came and ruined it is just that. Lewis's book, referenced by an earlier commentator, shows that very well. As in Europe, there were better times and worse times, better countries and worse countries, in the Muslim world, but Jews were always subject to discrimination, and sometimes to violence. I don't think it's fair to use the Crusades, Inquisition, pogroms, and Holocaust as the standard. Note that there were places where Jews were not subject to discrimination, notably Hindu India and China. I've always wondered why more Jews didn't wind up in these places.

BTW, my wife's great-grandfather was murdered in anti-Semitic violence circa 1939 in Baghdad.
10.18.2007 12:32am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Benjamin, the lecture addresses this, by the lecturer points out that the end result there was Muslim defeat of the Jews, leading Muslims to think of Jews as inferior, whereas in Christian antit-Semitism the claim was that the Jews killed their God, which makes them a potentially powerful, devilish force.
10.18.2007 12:41am
sashal (mail):
And I had relatives who died in Pogroms.
But overall, Jews had quieter and more dignified life in the Islamic countries, then in the Europe, at least before the modern times, at least before the true liberalism entered the minds and souls of many Europeans.
From my personal experience.
I spent 20 some years in Muslim country and about as much in the white more industrialized European country.
Guess where have I encountered anti-Semitism more.
10.18.2007 12:41am
sashal (mail):
1840? Zionism?
Those people who will claim it will have no grounds to stand on.
But, again, prof Bernstein, those incidents in Islamic countries do not amount in their intensity and numbers to what Jews had to go through in Europe...
10.18.2007 12:45am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Sasha, I will reiterate that using the standard of the Christian West's treatment of Jews is ridiculous. That's like using early 20th century Mississippi as the standard for treatment of blacks, and saying that North Carolina "treated blacks relatively well" because it wasn't Mississippi. True, but that doesn't mean that N.C. deserves praise just for being "not as bad."

And if you're saying that, say, Malaysia is less anti-Semitic than, say, Russia I can believe that, but so what? The author's thesis isn't that every Muslim country is more anti-Semitic than every Christian country, nor, for that matter, that Muslim anti-Semitism was historically as bad or worse as Christian anti-Semitism, but that the form of anti-Semitism that currently exists in Muslim countries is an outgrowth of the influence of Naziism. But I'll grant that to the extent that Muslims would have resisted the "Jews are trying to, and are capable of, dominating the world," theme that emanated from Europe, the various successes of tiny Israel vs. the general impotence of its Arab opponents helped overcome that resistance.
10.18.2007 12:48am
sashal (mail):

But I'll grant that to the extent that Muslims would have resisted the "Jews are trying to, and are capable of, dominating the world," theme that emanated from Europe, the various successes of tiny Israel vs. the general impotence of its Arab opponents helped overcome that resistance.


LOL, prof, that was a good one. Can't argue with that point.
10.18.2007 1:03am
Randy R. (mail):
Hitler's legacy also includes the baby-boomers in America. Without him and his war, we wouldn't have had all those servicemen coming home and starting up families to the degree that they did. We will be living with that legacy and its effects for several more generations.
10.18.2007 1:07am
Michael B (mail):
"The British historian Elie Kedourie whom I admire a lot stated that “moral integrity and scholarly rigor were always complementary” and I subscribe to this point of view. Today an increasing number of anti-Islamist Muslims are complaining about the “well-meaning” behaviour of Western academics which lacks moral integrity and scholarly rigour." Matthias Kuntzel

That speaks volumes.
10.18.2007 1:31am
Dan28 (mail):

This all started well before the creation of the State of Israel, belying the notion that the Israel-Palestinian conflict caused modern Muslim anti-Semitism.

Huh? This argument strikes me as spurious. If Muslim anti-Semitism was fueled by Nazism, then sure, it didn't begin with the creation of the state of Israel. But it certainly began (or I suppose reached this new, more vitriolic phase) in immediate anticipation of the creation of the state of Israel. That's not really a very different claim. Sure, the Nazis encouraged anti-Semitism among the Arabs. But why did that encouragement fall on such receptive ears? I think you're just denying the obvious if you pretend that the obvious threat posed to Palestinian society by Zionism wasn't at least one major contributing factor. I mean, come on. Jews were building a new state on top of the Arabs. Of course that motivated anti-Jewish hatred (as some Zionists, like Jabodinsky, correctly understood). Why would you expect otherwise?
10.18.2007 1:33am
Michael B (mail):
10.18.2007 1:37am
hsh:
Hitler's legacy also includes the baby-boomers in America. Without him and his war, we wouldn't have had all those servicemen coming home and starting up families to the degree that they did.

I love it. Why is Social Security on a collision course with fiscal realty? Hitler!, of course. Medicare problems? Hitler! Inequality of income? Hitler! Heartbreak of psoriasis? Hitler!.

But, if it were not for the Japanese attacking the U.S and the subsequent U.S. declaration against Japan, Germany would not have declared war against the U.S. So, it was not Hitler!, it was Hirohito!. Imagine that. I owe my existence to Hirohito!.

But, I'm sure that Chamberlain played some role in this. Perhaps it is him we should blame for our existences.

The mind boggles.
10.18.2007 1:46am
Tom S (mail):
Nazi policy toward the Middle East was conflicted. Initially the Nazis saw Palestine as a place to dump German Jews. To that end, Eichmann met with Zionist organizations to discuss the transportation of Jews (minus their property and wealth, presumably) to Palestine. However, these initial steps were soon overtaken by the desire to subvert Britain in the region, as there was a ready audience for their propaganda among the Arab population.
10.18.2007 1:58am
Blar (mail) (www):
I don't know this history nearly as well as David or some of the other people here, but it seems implausible to give so much causal weight to Nazi propaganda. Wartime propaganda usually doesn't have such drastic or lasting effects. So why did anti-Semitism catch on?

It also seems exceedingly strange to mark 1948 as the beginning of the conflict between Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Filling in my sketchy memory with Wikipedia, here's some of the back story. The Zionist project of creating a Jewish homeland was underway in the late 19th century, with Zionist conferences meeting, Zionists discussing plans to form a Jewish state in Palestine, and Jews settling in Palestine with Zionist motivations. The issue took off with the first World War, with Zionists abandoning proposals to create a homeland someplace other than Palestine, Palestine becoming a separate territory under British control, and the Balfour Declaration indicating British favour of the establishment of "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Wikipedia summarizes the situation in the postwar decade: "The development of the first modern Hebrew-speaking city (Tel Aviv), the kibbutz movement, and other Jewish economic institutions, plus the use of Hebrew, began by the 1920s to lay the foundations of a new nationality, which would come into formal existence in 1948."

Even Kuentzel marks the Peel Plan to create a Jewish state in Palestine in 1937 as an important turning point in the rise of Arab anti-Semitism, a few paragraphs before inexplicably saying that this history "gives the lie to the assumption that Islamic anti-Semitism was triggered by Zionist or Israeli policies." Contrast that with the view of Edwin Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet in 1917, who opposed the Balfour Declaration in part because "it would be a grave cause of alarm to the Muslim world" (note: I'm not sure whose words are being quoted here).
10.18.2007 2:05am
Warmongering Lunatic:
Hitler helped promote a convenient explanation to the Arabs as to what was happening in the world. But the explanation would not have taken root if there wasn't something in need of explaining.

Under British administration, there was significant Zionist settlement in Palestine. This provoked riots in 1921 and 1929 where the British government protected the Jews, well before the Nazis were in any position to propagandize Arabs. Jews had already been transformed from a weak minority to a special, imperially-protected class.

Imagine you're an uneducated Arab on the streets of Jaffa in 1929. Wouldn't you wonder why the British were bringing all these Jews into your country, and exerting themselves to protect them? Wouldn't the explanation that the Jews were a secret power, and controlled Britain, make sense? Now the Balfour Declaration and the immigration and the British defense of the Jews has a clear motive -- the Jews want the land and arranged it all!

Now imagine, instead, that the British guarantees to the Arabs had been fulfilled, and in ~1920 a unitary Arab state, comprising all Palestine, Syria, and Iraq had come into being, independent (if under the influence of the British), with minimal Jewish immigration and the local government not caring much about any mob violence against the domestic Jews. Come 1933, who's going to pay any attention to the rants of Hitler? Only an idiot could think the Jews were so powerful.
10.18.2007 6:04am
Temp Guest (mail):
The Muslim Brotherhood has been mentioned here as if it were either some spontaneous or some pre-existing phenomenon that needs no explanation. In fact, it was an organization that -- like the Irish resistance, Gandhi's movement in India, and the like -- developed in response to an overbearing and insensitive British, imperialist occupation. Enforcement of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour declaration, overt British support for Zionist-funded displacement of native tenants, and a host of other insults to the native inhabitants of British-occupied Egypt and Palestine inevitably led to revolutionary discontent that fostered the growth of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. The benign neglect of the Ottoman Empire and later the Turks was salutory by comparison. The virulent anti-Semitism that exists today in the region is directly attributable to British and Zionist policies just after the 1914-1918 phase of World War I: A war which has not yet ended.
10.18.2007 9:40am
mischief (mail):
What you want to read is Thomas Sowell on the topic of middlemen minorities.

There are various minorities, such as the Jews in Europe and the Chinese in south east Asia among others, that have filled certain occupational niches. Small time money-lender. Peddler. etc.

All of these minorities have been the target of hatred and violence.

Evidence would therefore point to an economic source of the hatred.
10.18.2007 9:44am
curious123 (mail):
I'm wondering if Prof. Bernstein and any commenters could suggest a helpful, unbiased resource about the issues discussed in this thread.
Is there a book, or an article (hopefully available online), that could give me an accurate historical portrayal of what happened in the Middle East in the past century? I have heard many conflicting accounts, but usually one "side" or another is taken. I'm especially interested in the interactions between British imperialism, the Arabs already existing in Palestine, and the influx of the Jews, before the creation of Israel.
I'm genuinely curious if there's a good historical account that doesn't indulge in political overtones. I hope someone here can suggest a good source. Thanks.
10.18.2007 10:21am
Daniel in Brookline (mail) (www):
curious123:

I'm afraid that a "helpful, unbiased source" can be hard to come by here; tempers have run hot, on the subject of Jews in the Middle East, for a long time.

Perhaps your best bet is to find sources that are biased, in the traditional sense, but do a good job of dealing with that bias, or at least of announcing it up front. Unfortunately, in my experience, relatively unbiased accounts of early Zionism, and its effects, are far more likely to come from Jewish sources than from Arab sources.

(Why "unfortunately"? Because I'd much rather we could read works from both sides, each making a serious effort to see from the other side's point of view. But that sort of thing is only forthcoming from the Jewish side. If both sides had it, the chances for peace in the Middle East would be exponentially higher.)

I would suggest that you consult some of the professional historians cited here. Bernard Lewis is unparalleled. I've learned a lot from the works of Walter Laqueur. Martin Gilbert also does a very nice job.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
10.18.2007 10:46am
Temp Guest (mail):
curious123:

I'd like to suggest A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin, a fairly recent book which provides a balanced description of European diplomacy in the Middle East during the first third of the 20th century. It's a balanced presentation of material which is absolutely crucial to understanding the subsequent history of the region.
10.18.2007 10:58am
Tony Tutins (mail):
Being curious about the Zeesen transmitters, I found an amateur history page written by an amateur radio operator who had been a radio engineer from 1948 to 1988. Retiring for reasons of health, he became interested in radio history. From his web pages, in my imperfect translation:

"The German Radio and the German Postal Service operated transmitters in Zeesen from 1927 on, first long wave and then short wave. The first foreign program started in 1933; later that year programs were beamed to South America, Africa, and East Asia. The transmitting station was completely rebuilt and expanded in preparation for broadcasts of the 1936 Olympics. It became a vital part of the Third Reich's propaganda system, reaching as far as the U.S. and Australia.

"From the beginning of 1940, under the call sign "Voice of Free Arabia," programs were beamed at Arab lands, including Palestine, hoping that a putsch would overthrow the English colonial government. Up till then, pro-fascist Arabs had only narrow contact with the Nazi regime. The principal behind the programming was the Mufti of Jerusalem, who later emigrated to Germany."

He doesn't mention any anti-Semitic programming, but this is the logical place for it to go.
10.18.2007 11:00am
Matty G:
David: While much of what you say in the comments in undoubtedly true (poor treatment of Jews in the west, the bad idea of using that as a standard), it seems that your argument ultimately boils down to a single claim:

Muslims and others in the middle east who claim to dislike jews and act upon this dislike because of the existence of Israel aren't being genuine; in fact, the "Israel" story is just a rationale/justification for ideas and behavior they would have in any case.

But that can't possibly be the whole story. Whatever it's merit, there must be a significant portion of anti-semitism in the middle east that is derived from the actions of Israel, based on the test "what would modern middle eastern anti-semitism amount to if Isreal had not been created."

Sure, it'd be there. But it would obviously be different, and I'm personal confident it would not be as strong.

But this all leads to a bigger question: wWhat's the upshot? I can't think of a situation that calls for realism more than this. By your own logic, it seems that the reasons have gone from plausibly rational (we hate jews because of israel) to more irrational (we hate jews because we always have or for some 19th century reason). So i'm not sure the reasons even matter.
10.18.2007 11:01am
Eli Rabett (www):
Anyone interested in motive might inquire as to the reason this was posted.
10.18.2007 11:29am
Anderson (mail):
But there is nothing in Islam or Islamic history to explain the virulent, Protocols-style "the Jews are out to dominate the world" style of anti-Semitism that is currently prevalent in the Islamic world, unless you go to Western influences, primarily Naziism (though Soviet propaganda, not mentioned by Kuentzel, didn't help).

I think DB is right about this, tho it's not an either/or.

The founding of Israel created an antipathy that then, seeking expression, seized on the available ideologies.

Had the Jews decided to create their homeland in, say, Montana, then it's very difficult to imagine that Nazi-style anti-semitism would've caught on in the Middle East, tho perhaps it would have in Montana.
10.18.2007 11:30am
PLR:

Anyone interested in motive might inquire as to the reason this was posted.

It is true the topic has little to do with Torts II, Products Liability, Evidence, American Constitutional History, Constitutional Law, and Scientific and Expert Evidence. But I guess the number of responses generated will indicate whether the topic is of interest.
10.18.2007 11:39am
DavidBernstein (mail):
Eli, I've noticed that a huge percentage of your comments are snarky and non-substantive. You are close to being banned. Consider this probation.
10.18.2007 11:42am
MDJD2B (mail):

There are various minorities, such as the Jews in Europe and the Chinese in south east Asia among others, that have filled certain occupational niches. Small time money-lender. Peddler. etc.

All of these minorities have been the target of hatred and violence.


Excepr that in the British Mandartory territories, Jews were not filling these niches. They were establishing themselves in all economic niches to create a viable Jeish society. Labor Zionixm, the most numerous movement among the settlers, self-consciously rejected the traditional role of Jews in Europe as artisans, merchants, and money handlers.
10.18.2007 11:58am
Tony Tutins (mail):
Another web page states that the "Voice of Free Arabia" broadcast, especially to Egypt, anti-British and pan-Arab freedom propaganda, for 30 minutes each day, beginning 9 May 1941.

Other propaganda stations were directed towards Great Britain (featuring the notorious Lord Haw-Haw), the Soviet Union, the U.S., and India (The Voice of Subhas Chandras Bose's Freedom Movement). Again in India the idea was to get the locals to overthrow British colonial government.
10.18.2007 12:05pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
developed in response to an overbearing and insensitive British, imperialist occupation. Enforcement of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour declaration, overt British support for Zionist-funded displacement of native tenants,

Though no one in the vicinity was apparently bothered by 600 years of Turkish Imperialism in the ME. It's well known that the Turks were such mellow imperialists.

BTW, from 1919 to 1949 the Arab population of the British Mandate increased by much more than the Jewish population. The Brits restricted Jewish immigration because of fear of conflict while Arab immigration was uncontrolled.

Note who's missing from all this - American Imperialism. We weren't in the League of Nations. We had no (significant) military. We didn't sell arms to the Jews until the '60s. We opposed the '56 war. Czechoslovakia supplied most of the arms the Jews had before the '50's and France the most during the '50s and '60s but Islamics don't like us anyway.

They kill Thais too. I guess Thai Imperialism must be a big problem for the Sons of the Prophet.

Some of us in the 'House of War' have a problem with the 'House of Submission' because between 630 and 770 they swarmed out of Arabia (without provocation) and conquered 2/3 of Christendom (including 3 of our 5 holiest cities - the 4th fell in 1453). Christians have a long memory.
10.18.2007 12:05pm
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
Whatever it's merit, there must be a significant portion of anti-semitism in the middle east that is derived from the actions of Israel, based on the test "what would modern middle eastern anti-semitism amount to if Isreal had not been created."


Perhaps a different fellow might have written, say, after a wave of lynchings, murders, and church burnings in Mississippi during Civil Rights movement:

"Whatever its merit, there must be a significant portion of these lynchings, murders, and church burnings that is derived from the actions of the Negroes, based on the test 'what would Mississippi look like today if the Negroes hadn't started getting so darned uppity.'"

In both cases, the built-in assumption is that the solution to centuries of abuse -- the creation of the state of Israel, on one hand, and the movement toward actually giving full citizenship rights to blacks -- is somehow provocative.
10.18.2007 12:59pm
Soccer Dad (mail) (www):
It's not just the Muslim Brotherhood that adapted Nazi ideologly. Bernard Lews also descrbies Baathism as be a Middle Eastern adaptation of Nazism.

It was at that time that the ideological foundations of what later became the Baath Party were laid, with the adaptation of Nazi ideas and methods to the Middle Eastern situation. The nascent party's ideology emphasized pan-Arabism, nationalism, and a form of socialism. The party was not officially founded until April 1947, but memoirs of the time and other sources show that the Nazi interlude is where it began. From Syria, the Germans and the proto-Baathists also set up a pro-Nazi regime in Iraq, led by the famous, and notorious, Rashid Ali al-Gailani.
10.18.2007 12:59pm
curious123 (mail):
Thanks to Daniel in Brookline and Temp Guest for their suggestions.
10.18.2007 1:15pm
Bottomfish (mail):
Kuentzel's lecture covers only Islamic fundamentalism, dating from the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood. But even before those times, there was a issue of intolerance. Of course the problem with the Jews from the Muslim point of view is that they aren't Muslim. Likewise with Christians. Traditionally being dhimmi, both are subject to special taxation, and in olden days wearing special clothes, not riding on horseback, and so on. The works of Bat Ye'Or come to mind. So the MB's ideas fell on fertile ground.
10.18.2007 1:20pm
Adrian (mail):
But there is nothing in Islam or Islamic history to explain the virulent, Protocols-style "the Jews are out to dominate the world" style of anti-Semitism that is currently prevalent in the Islamic world, unless you go to Western influences, primarily Naziism (though Soviet propaganda, not mentioned by Kuentzel, didn't help).


So, Kuentzel says Hamas heard it from the the Muslim Brotherhood, who heard it from the Nazis. Who got the Protocols from the Russians (who had scapegoating down), and the idea of conspiracist anti-semitism from, you know, long-standing European Christian tradition. Which is to say, Arab conspiracist anti-semitism comes from Europe. As far as I can see the only point of making a big deal out of the Nazi link in the causal chain (calling Hamas "Hitler's legacy" and so forth) is to suggest that Hamas are like the Nazis. The advantage of that technique being that the implicit allegation (that Hamas are genocidal, I suppose) can be safely implicit.

Also,


Arabs aren't too fond of other ethnic groups with which they have or have had territorial conflicts, including Kurds, Africans, Persians, Europeans, and so forth.

Way to accuse an entire language family of racism.
10.18.2007 1:23pm
wfjag:
"Note that there were places where Jews were not subject to discrimination, notably Hindu India and China. I've always wondered why more Jews didn't wind up in these places."

I would suggest, Professor, that had more Jews moved to India and China, the same discrimination would have developed. I believe that a certain level of tribalism is genetically based, and so "hard wired" into the human psyche. Once an identifiable "different" group becomes sufficiently numerous, and powerful in the relevant terms of the society (financially, militarily, politically, etc.), an "us" vs. "them" mindset develops. Understanding that is essential to understanding groups like Hamas and their appeal.

I grew up in a semi-rural area of the South. In my H.S. graduating class of about 220, there were 2 Jews. They were also Polish. They were the butt of and knew the best Pollack jokes – but, I never recall hearing a comment about their religion. I went to college in the Northeast, and saw a lot of anti-Semitism, and self-segregation by Jews. Once, in college, a Jewish friend from the NYC area asked me “Why do Christians hate Jews so much?” My response was “What? Jesus was a Jew.” The question dumbfounded me. Didn’t everyone know that it was the Romans who crucified Jesus? Sure, some of the Rabbis asked for that, but that was so Jesus could rise from the dead and show that the New Covenant was greater than the Old Covenant. I’d never heard anyone say “The Jews killed Jesus” until my friend, with the patience of an explanation to someone who’s a bit slow, explained that idea. When Israel won the Six Day War, everyone I knew thought it was great. We thought that the Jews should be put in charge of running Vietnam, so we could “Kick the Commies’ asses.” I knew a little about the Holocaust, since friends of my parents were WWII vets who had liberated some of the camps. I also knew the Einstein and other Jewish scientists had fled the Nazis and come to the US. In Jr. High and H.S., my opinion and that of my friends was that the Nazis had to be among the most stupid people to ever have existed for forcing their smartest scientists to leave. In other words, there weren’t enough Jews around to be a “them” group, so the concept of anti-Semitism didn’t make any sense, or trigger any form of tribal instinct.

In my experience, when a “them” group doesn’t exist, people create one. I spent nearly a year and a half in Bosnia and Croatia. Before deployment, I read scores of articles about the conflict and its causes – including that it was due to “ancient ethnic hatreds.” I soon found that despite the emotional appeal of that explanation, it was false. They couldn’t tell each other apart by looking. We couldn’t tell them apart by DNA testing. The surest way to distinguish between the so called “ethnic groups” was by first name. Yugoslavia means “Land of the South Slavs.” The Croats were Roman Catholic Yugoslavs. The Serbs were Serbian Orthodox Yugoslavs. The Bosniaks were Muslim Yugoslavs. Or, more accurately, their grandparents had been of such religious affiliations. Between 30% and 40% of the population was “mixed” – of mixed religious heritage (e.g., Tito’s parents were Croat and Slovene), or other groups, like the Sarajevian Jews, who’d come there from Spain after being expelled in 1492. They had grown up together, gone to school together, worked together, intermarried, and for five years, murdered, raped and tortured each other. That’s nearly impossible to understand, unless some instinctual response is considered as part of the answer. The Producer of TV SFOR was a young woman who was in what we’d consider Middle School when the conflict began, and lived in an “ethnically mixed” suburb of Sarajevo. She was Bosniak. Her neighbors, whose apartment shared a back wall with that of her parents, were Serbs. She told me that during the conflict, while her parents and the neighbors couldn’t meet face to face, they would talk through the back wall, and arrange things like where to drop off letters and gifts to friends and relatives “on the other side.” She learned of the conflict while walking with her best friend. In that area of Europe, a social custom is that girls and young women who are best friends frequently walk with their arms around each other. Her best friend was killed, literally in her arms, by a sniper. A few weeks later the sniper was identified, and his rifle, with its 20x power scope, was found. He was their teacher. I found her story so troubling that I checked the records, and confirmed it.

You’re a teacher. What would it take to motivate you to murder one of your students, knowing that that person is one of your students and knowing that person poses no threat to you? That cannot be understood without some instinctive level of hate for someone who is one of “them.”

One of the things that struck me about the Hamas Covenant is that it reads very much like other conspiracy theorists’ manifestos. For the military, I’ve read conspiracy tracts by the Klan, Aryan Brotherhood, various Black radical groups (US and foreign), and other groups. I’ve also read tracts by 9/11 deniers, anti-papist groups, and, when looking for information on Albert Pike (a truly interesting 19th century American character), came across a lot of Free Masons-New World Order conspiracy stuff. Except for adding the Lions Club (my wife, a born and bred Southern girl, will be surprised that she’s part of the International Zionist Conspiracy to start world wars. She thinks it’s a social club that mainly holds pancake breakfasts and raises money for scholarships and to help the blind), the Hamas Covenant is almost verbatim in many parts of so many other of conspiracy theories. At their basic level, there’s an appeal to “us” as the good people, versus “them” who are evil.

However, after an exceptionally poorly written novel inspired McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City and kill over 180 people, some of them infants, in order to start a race war, I no longer ignore the potential impact of such tracts. The people who write them aren’t stupid, and truly believe what they say. And, they inspire their followers to kill others, and themselves, in furtherance of whatever particular cause.

With the internet, TV and radio, it’s much easier to create a “them” that lives hundreds or thousands of miles away. And, it’s easier to claim that the “them” is a vast, faceless, evil conspiracy.

The question I asked of you isn’t rhetorical. Rather, as my favorite translation of Sun Tzu puts it “To know yourself and know your enemy is the foundation of victory.” While I don’t doubt your knowledge and intellectual skills, until you deal with the emotional, instinctual message of “us” versus “them” by Hamas, and other violent groups, you will not defeat them. You have to get into their heads and see the world as they see it to do that. A war is won when the will of the enemy to resist is overcome. To do that, you have to understand how your enemy sees the world.

Why do I care if Israel exists or whether some group wants to exterminate the Jews? I’m not Jewish and have never been to Israel. However, once such a group destroys its “them”, they create more “thems.” Sooner or later my family and I will be their “them.” For that reason I would add a fourth reason to Dr. Kuentzel's reasons on why it is so difficult to organize an effort to oppose such groups: The failure to understand Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom that “We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately.”

I agree that many of the commentators have missed the point. I’m not sure you understand. They hate you because they have to define themselves as an “us” and you happen to be one of their current “them.” In logic, facts are important to testing the validity of a theory. However, when the basic premise is instinctual, the “facts” only need to provide a pretext. To be an “us”, who are good, there must be a “them” who are evil. That’s not an appeal to logic; it’s an appeal to emotion. Professor, when you can answer the question I posed, then you’ll begin to understand groups like Hamas and their appeal. Then you can use your knowledge and intellect to defeat them.
10.18.2007 1:23pm
more on brotherhood (mail):
There is an interesting discussion about the Moslem Brotherhood at Rod Dreher's blog (Crunchy Con). He recently attended a conference regarding the Brotherhood that included commentary from moderate Moslems. Here's a link:
Muslims vs Muslim Brotherhood
10.18.2007 1:23pm
markm (mail):
Didn't Arab violence against Jews in Palestine start during the 1920's, long before Hitler was in a position to stir up anything? There were two obvious bases for Arab resentment of the Jews:

-- Jealousy. The Jews came with cash to purchase land (although usually overpaying for just the worst land), while the Arabs were nearly all tenants, paying rent or crop-shares to absentee owners. And then the Jews took their "worthless" land and wrung better crops from it than the Arab tenant-farmers were raising...

-- Zionism and the Balfour declaration. Palestine had been Arab/Muslim land for 13 centuries, now one foreign government was giving it to another group of foreigners!

I doubt that in the 1920's the Arabs thought much of theories that the Jews ran the world. They must have been having too much trouble adjusting to how Christians such as the British had suddenly came into their world and were running everything. But they had enough reason to hate the Jews without adopting poisonous European antisemitism; I'm sure that came later, and through contact with European antisemites.

OTOH, it's possible that it wasn't the Nazis that first passed on those ideas. There were too many British and French antisemites, and enough of them among the British rulers of Palestine to ensure that the Jews were often unprotected against Arab terrorism. There were Americans publishing translations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and trying to blame every problem on Jewish/Marxist immigrants. Etc.
10.18.2007 1:35pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Mark, yes. But if the anti-Semitism is of the sort you posit, based on territorial rivalry, it can be resolved or at least diminished based on a peace settlement. If it's based on Hamas-like ideology, no peace settlement is even possible.
10.18.2007 1:45pm
Larry Fafarman (mail) (www):
IMO the main causes of Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism are Israel's hard-line policies and the one-sidedness of US support for Israel, which the Arabs and Muslims blame on the influence of Jews and Christian "crusaders." None of the other 14 members of the UN Security Council ever voted "no" in support of any of approx. 40 US vetoes of resolutions aimed against Israel in the period 1972-2006. In the period 1988-97, there was an unbroken string of ten 14-1 votes -- i.e., with no abstentions -- against these US vetoes. And we wonder why they call us "The Great Satan."
10.18.2007 1:51pm
Rickm:
I think its important to note the primary motivations of Arab nationalism was not antisemitism, nor was primary motivation of Arab sympathy for the Nazi cause in World War II antisemitism. Nothing--NOTHING--motivated Arab nationalism more than colonialism. The raison de'tre of Arab nationalism was the expulsion of the British and French from the Middle East. Much of the sympathy for German in WWII can be attributed to the fact that Germany was the enemy of the British and the French.
10.18.2007 2:06pm
kietharch (mail):
"ONE PALESTINE COMPLETE" , author, Segev. This book covers the period about 1919 to 1948; I read it several years ago. Mr. Segev is, as I recall, an Israeli journalist. The book made me think the creation of Israel was a tragic mistake and a criminal blunder by (mainly) the British. I think Blar (above) has it right; anti-jew pathology was inevitable regardless of what the Nazis did.
10.18.2007 2:16pm
wooga:
Arabs aren't too fond of other ethnic groups with which they have or have had territorial conflicts, including Kurds, Africans, Persians, Europeans, and so forth.
Way to accuse an entire language family of racism.

Adrian,
Doesn't change the fact that its true - just like saying: "In the ___ times, ethnic ____s weren't too fond of other ethnic groups with which they had territorial conflicts." That's always been the case. It just happens to _remain_ a problem in the middle east.

Go find your nearest Persian and refer to him as an Arab. Or label an Arab Egyptian as African. Or call a Bosnian a Turk. Or call an Arab a Jew. See how they react. Racism is still incredibly prevalent in the middle east, and particular so among Arabs and subsets. That's a fact, not a smear.
10.18.2007 2:20pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
WF, that's a very interesting comment, but I think how to get people to act rationally is beyond my expertise.
10.18.2007 2:26pm
Rickm:
And Kuntzel's lecture is ridiculous and devoid of real evidence.

As their battalions marched down Cairo's boulevards in semi-fascist formation they would burst into song


Wow! See they look like fascists, so they are fascists!


Their [The Muslim Brotherhood] “liberation struggle”, however, had more in common with the “liberation struggle” of the Nazis than with any kind of progressive movement.


So he just asserts this and its called scholarship?


The Brotherhood organized mass demonstrations in Egyptian cities under the slogans "Down With the Jews!" and "Jews Get Out of Egypt and Palestine!" Their Jew-hatred drew on the one hand on Islamic sources.


So resisting Jewish immigration into Palestine is tantamount to "Jew-hatred"? I guess the British were busy hating jews too!


Their Jew-hatred was also inspired by Nazi influences: Leaflets called for a boycott of Jewish goods and Jewish shops, and the Brotherhood's newspaper, al-Nadhir, carried a regular column on "The Danger of the Jews of Egypt," which published the names and addresses of Jewish businessmen and allegedly Jewish newspaper publishers all over the world, attributing every evil, from communism to brothels, to the "Jewish danger."


Why does he get a pass on making a connection between an anti-semitic tactic and Nazism without evidence supporting a connection?


The historical record gives the lie to the assumption that Islamic anti-Semitism was triggered by Zionist or Israeli policies. In 1937 – eleven years before the founding of Israel!


This may make sense to someone who is completely ignorant of Palestine prior to the founding of Israel. Do I need to point out that anti-Zionism was present before Israel as large number of Jewish immigrants entered the mandate?


The division in the political and economic system is well known as the Cold War. The second split – which was obscured by the Cold War – concerned the acceptance and continuing influence of National Socialist forms of thought.


This is just silly.


So Kuntzel's entire rests on argument is this: The Mufti collaborated with Nazis (duh) and the Muslim Brotherhood was subsidized by Germany (duh).

This justifies the title "HITLER'S LEGACY: ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST". Really?
10.18.2007 2:27pm
PLR:
In both cases, the built-in assumption is that the solution to centuries of abuse -- the creation of the state of Israel, on one hand, and the movement toward actually giving full citizenship rights to blacks -- is somehow provocative.

I'm surprised that comment has not generated a response along the lines of "Conflation of the Day!"

But instead, I'll just say that solutions imposed by greater powers on the lesser, with something less than the consent or acquiescence of the interested parties, can indeed be provocative. I'm gratified by the efforts of all the groups who played a constructive part in achieving civil rights for Black Americans, and I hope that someday there will be more groups playing a similarly constructive role in ensuring the permanence of the state of Israel.
10.18.2007 2:27pm
Michael B (mail):
"Though no one in the vicinity was apparently bothered by 600 years of Turkish Imperialism in the ME. It's well known that the Turks were such mellow imperialists.

"BTW, from 1919 to 1949 the Arab population of the British Mandate increased by much more than the Jewish population. The Brits restricted Jewish immigration because of fear of conflict while Arab immigration was uncontrolled." Duncan Frissell

That and the remainder of your comment illuminates a great deal.
10.18.2007 2:39pm
mariner (mail):
Under British administration, there was significant Zionist settlement in Palestine. This provoked riots in 1921 and 1929 where the British government protected the Jews,


Horse hockey.

The British did NOT protect the Jews -- their history of abject failure to do so was the inspiration for the Haganah.

After each of the major riots the British further restricted Jewish immigration -- to the very territory intended to be a Jewish homeland -- to appease Muslims.

British administration of the Palestinian Mandate was disgraceful.
10.18.2007 2:39pm
mariner (mail):
curious123:

One such book is "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters.

It's not easy to get through and it's not written that well, but there's a lot of information.
10.18.2007 2:43pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Rick, it's a non-footnoted lecture transcript. He's written a whole book on the subject. And, yes, I think chanting "down with the Jews," and "Jews get out of Egypt" in the streets of Cairo is evidence of anti-Semitic sentiment. Even if you think these sentiments were stirred by Zionism, why wouldn't that be "down with Jewish immigration to Palestine," "down with Zionism," or "Jews out of Palestine"? By your analogy, when White Russians attacked Jews during the Russian Civil War because of both pre-existing Jew-hatred and the fact that Jews were overrepresented among Communists, they weren't really being anti-Jewish, because the real target of their antipathy was Communism.
10.18.2007 2:47pm
Rickm:

One such book is "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters.

It's not easy to get through and it's not written that well, but there's a lot of information.



Its also been completely debunked by scholarly community for having no scholarly value or intellectual honesty.
10.18.2007 2:48pm
Michael B (mail):
Rickm,

Three primers by the same author:

Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots

European Roots of Antisemitism in Current Islamic Thinking

National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World

That's a mere beginning. Though it's not at all apparent you're inquiring seriously to begin with.
10.18.2007 2:49pm
David Levavi (mail):
Your take on the origins of Jihadist antisemitism no less than the origins of National Socialism's political use of antisemitism are shallow and incomplete.

The origins of the Baathist Party, Black September and other antisemitic Arab political parties are Christians of the Catholic Communion and Catholic antisemitism flowed from them freely. The Plight of the Palestinians as the Passion of the Christ as an operative paradigm freely accepted in Western media is one of their contributions.

Christian Muslims exploit antisemitism cravenly and shamelessly in the hope of redirecting antichristian Jihadist heat to the Jews. Their success can be measured in the catastrophic decline in Christian population throughout the Islamic world.

Hitler's antisemitism was inbibed with Frau Schtickelgruber's milk but it was at Mass antisemitic rallies organized by the Catholic League that Hitler learned the galvanizing power of antisemitism. There are photographs a smiling and happy young Hitler marching along in one of the League's big fuck-the-Jews street parades, under placards, banners and streamers covered with Jew hatred, crusader's crosses and other heraldic drek. One more penniless scuffler, living in a rooming house and depending on his Jewish friend in the next bed to peddle his constipated watercolors--inevitably to other Jews.

The Vatican opposed the foundation of the State of Israel and did everything in its power to prevent it. The Vatican has sided with the Arabs and against the Jewish State in every forum ever since. It continues to maintain ties and strongly support antisemitic Arabism.

A final point: Muslim triumphalist fantasies to the contrary, Mohammad came to the Jews first in friendship. Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, not Mecca and the Kebaa, is why Muslims originally faced East in prayer. Had the Jews of Medina welcomed Mohammed and accepted his offer, Judaism, not something called Islam, would hold sway in what is today called the Muslim world

As it is, the Jews of Medina fell over themselves laughing at the notion of an illiterate Arab as Prophet of the People of the Book. The Jews of Medina were too fat and comfortable to recognize they were being made an offer they couldn't refuse. The Jewish city of Medina was the richest and most enlightened in Arabia. It was ony after the conquest and plunder of Medina that the unlettered prophet had the wherewithal to get his show on the road and go agalavanting in the Levant. The Christians of the Levant who had cheered and offered up prayers of thanks the day the Caesar and last Roman army fell lived to see the Muslims sweep in to fill the vacuum. Just deserts.
10.18.2007 3:10pm
Rich Rostrom (mail):
DB: I don't know about China, but if Kipling is any guide, Jews in India were definitely subject to bigotry and discrimination.

In "His Chance In Life", a "Eurasian", Michele D'Cruze, courts Miss Vezzis, a "Eurasian" governess (both are 95% native, but consider themselves "white"), but there are obstacles:
There was a compromising legend... that a black Jew of Cochin had married into the D'Cruze family...


In "On the City Wall", Wali Dad, a young, "enlightened" Moslem says to the narrator
Though I have lost every belief in the world, and try to be proud of my losing, I cannot help hating a Jew.


How the Hindus felt, Kipling never touched on: but Jews would be, literally, "outcaste" and therefore, I guess, despised.
10.18.2007 3:11pm
guest1100:
Had the Jews decided to create their homeland in, say, Montana, then it's very difficult to imagine that Nazi-style anti-semitism would've caught on in the Middle East, tho perhaps it would have in Montana.

And if the Palestinians had decided to create their homeland in Montana, then its very difficult to imagine the Nazi-style Anti-Arabism would've caught on in the Middle East.

IMO the main causes of Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism are Israel's hard-line policies and the one-sidedness of US support for Israel, which the Arabs and Muslims blame on the influence of Jews and Christian "crusaders."
IMO, the main causes of bad feelings towards Arabs are Arabs hard-line policies, throwing out/killing virtualy all Jews in all Arab lands, and one-sidesness of Russian support for Arabs, which the Jews blame on the influence of expediency and anti-Semitism. And doesn't the rest of your post speak much more about the UN than anything else?
10.18.2007 3:18pm
hattio1:
Professor Bernstein says;

Mark, yes. But if the anti-Semitism is of the sort you posit, based on territorial rivalry, it can be resolved or at least diminished based on a peace settlement. If it's based on Hamas-like ideology, no peace settlement is even possible.


And says


but I think how to get people to act rationally is beyond my expertise


I would suggest that one way to get people to act rationally is to assume their capable of it. If you take as an article of fact that no peace settlement is possible, the chances of a peace settlement drop precipitously.
10.18.2007 3:21pm
AlexH:
There's also another, earlier, European influence to consider: the Christian idea of the Jew as the devil, which in turn made possible the "blood libel" that dogged Jews for hundreds of years (and which, incidentally, was revived by the Nazis for their purposes).

The first anti-Jewish blood libel in the Arab world was the (in)famous 1840 case in Damascus, which was spearheaded by the French consul (see Wikipedia article on the case). That in turn created fertile ground for other (also originally European) anti-Semitic ideas and literature, such as the Protocols.
10.18.2007 3:30pm
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
But instead, I'll just say that solutions imposed by greater powers on the lesser, with something less than the consent or acquiescence of the interested parties, can indeed be provocative.

Sure. But, by and large, the majority among white Southerners who didn't like having civil rights for blacks imposed on them and the minority of those folks who reacted to that with lynching and other forms of terrorism gave it up.

Granted, many did feel provoked, but when the Feds finally made it clear that terrorism wasn't going to be tolerated, they largely gave it up.

You're correct, though in suggesting that the undoing of Jim Crow and the creation of the state of Israel are different in many ways.

In the former, correcting those serious wrongs was a matter of violations of some civil rights; for the folks involved in the latter, it was a matter of much more serious oppression (the Jewish refugees from Arab countries lived under regimes far more oppressive than the US South) and/or survival.

But there certainly are differences; it's not exactly common to hear excuses for Bull Connor, the Klan, George Wallace, or that crowd, for example, and when they are given, it's not complaints about how the Negroes were just too darned uppity.
10.18.2007 3:31pm
Matty G:

Perhaps a different fellow might have written, say, after a wave of lynchings, murders, and church burnings in Mississippi during Civil Rights movement:

"Whatever its merit, there must be a significant portion of these lynchings, murders, and church burnings that is derived from the actions of the Negroes, based on the test 'what would Mississippi look like today if the Negroes hadn't started getting so darned uppity.'"

In both cases, the built-in assumption is that the solution to centuries of abuse -- the creation of the state of Israel, on one hand, and the movement toward actually giving full citizenship rights to blacks -- is somehow provocative.


I think a much better (although not perfect) analogy would be the ending of slavery. I think we can agree that ending slavery was a largely positive step (just like we can agree that creating Israel was a positive step), but at the same time agree that the planter class of this south was financial ruined despite doing nothing illegal, just as many Arabs were injured by the creation of Israel. That the planters hated blacks prior to the civil war, or that the Arabs hated jews prior to the creation of Israel bears little on the question of whether the freeing of the slaves or the creation of Israel influenced that hatred. It did, period.

Good policies --- even great policies --- can have some negative effects, you know? We aren't trying to justify southern hatred of blacks or Arab hatred of jews, we are trying to explain it. Those are two different things.
10.18.2007 3:37pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Levavi -- you left out that Adolf Eichmann was a Protestant and member of the YMCA.
10.18.2007 3:47pm
guest1100:
but at the same time agree that the planter class of this south was financial ruined despite doing nothing illegal, just as many Arabs were injured by the creation of Israel.

While I certainly get the point you are making (and agree with it to an extent), how exactly did the creation of Israel injure many Arabs?
10.18.2007 3:50pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
Hey guys. Haven't you heard? "Incitement to riot does not constitute an excuse for riot."

If you commit bad acts that place me in reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm because someone upset you, I get to kill you just as if you were committing those acts for fun.
10.18.2007 4:05pm
Matty G:



but at the same time agree that the planter class of this south was financial ruined despite doing nothing illegal, just as many Arabs were injured by the creation of Israel.



While I certainly get the point you are making (and agree with it to an extent), how exactly did the creation of Israel injure many Arabs?


Well, I know there is heated debate around here about who was responsible for the displacement of non-jews living in what became israel, i think it's safe to say that a good number of people were uprooted from their lives and forced to find new living situation with worse conditions, with the only alternative being to stay and face certain second-class (even if it was benevolent second-class) treatment in the new state of israel. Basically, i think there were many people living in the area who legitimately would have been materially better off personally without the creation of israel.

I think this very much makes the akin to the planter class of the south during the war. They suffered personally for the greater good, and while i would never want to suggest that blacks did not deserve freedom or the jews a state, i think it is worth recognizing that there were people negatively affected who were doing nothing illegal, and in some cases perhaps (planters who had long since freed their slaves; pro two-state arabs in the 1940s) nothing even remotely immoral or unethical, even by the standards of today.

mg
10.18.2007 4:05pm
Rickm:

While I certainly get the point you are making (and agree with it to an extent), how exactly did the creation of Israel injure many Arabs?


It kicked many of them out of their homes, many were killed, and, perhaps worst of all, gave an excuse for conservative Arab politicians to exploit the issue. See Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
10.18.2007 4:06pm
PLR:
It kicked many of them out of their homes, many were killed, and, perhaps worst of all, gave an excuse for conservative Arab politicians to exploit the issue.

It is also a spectacularly beautiful and desirable piece of real estate in that region, and vulnerable from a purely military standpoint. Not a good mix.
10.18.2007 4:15pm
Steve Rosenbach (www):
Michel Aflaq of Syria was the founder and ideological guru of Ba'athism. As a young "intellectual" in the early 30's, he developed his philosophies of pan-Arabism while greatly influenced by fascism and national socialism. Another gift from the Nazis.
10.18.2007 4:17pm
Rickm:
Steve,
Where are you getting this information from? I'm curious.
10.18.2007 4:23pm
guest1100:
Well, I know there is heated debate around here about who was responsible for the displacement of non-jews living in what became israel, i think it's safe to say that a good number of people were uprooted from their lives and forced to find new living situation with worse conditions, with the only alternative being to stay and face certain second-class (even if it was benevolent second-class) treatment in the new state of israel. Basically, i think there were many people living in the area who legitimately would have been materially better off personally without the creation of israel.

Agreed, I have no real desire to rehash who did what to whom exactly.
But what exactly was the impetus for people to be uprooted? The creation of Israel, or the fighting that came afterward?

Also, and its certainly a hypothetical, but I do wonder if the Arabs there would have been "materially better off" without the creation of Israel. Looking at the typical Arab living in Israel and the typical Arab living in Egypt, who is "materially better off"? Or an Arab in Israel vs an Arab in Gaza--who is "materially better off"?
10.18.2007 4:41pm
guest1100:
It kicked many of them out of their homes, many were killed, and, perhaps worst of all, gave an excuse for conservative Arab politicians to exploit the issue. See Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

Again though, it wasn't the creation of Israel that did that.

Also, I believe you excuse too much--wouldn't the Arab politicians (I would say dictators but to each his own) have found some other rationale anyway? Yes, Israel is a handy excuse but there's always something and the Arab world has not shown itself to be inclined towards liberalism or freedom.
10.18.2007 4:47pm
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
I think a much better (although not perfect) analogy would be the ending of slavery. I think we can agree that ending slavery was a largely positive step (just like we can agree that creating Israel was a positive step), but at the same time agree that the planter class of this south was financial ruined despite doing nothing illegal, just as many Arabs were injured by the creation of Israel.

A better analogy, sure -- although the balance is a bit off, given the difference between the harms and dangers suffered blacks of the Civil Rights era south and the Jewish refugees from Arab countries as well as Europe.

But there's still the major -- the damage done to the planter class in the south was inflicted by external forces, widespread, great (sure, and necessary).

The damage done to a number of Arabs was almost entirely self-inflicted -- while there were a (very) few incidents of expulsions of Arabs during the War for Independence, most of it was the result of a combination of panic and direction of other Arabs, and the damage has only spread. The failure of the Lebanese to integrate their cousins from the into the Lebanese polity, the addition of hundreds of thousands of local Arabs to subject class of the Hashemite-ruled Transjordan (largely from the snatching of Judea and Samaria), etc.

I think, though, we can equally dispense with the "harm" done to the slaveowners by not being able to own humans, and the harm done to Arabs by having to tolerate non-dhimmis in their midst as being worth compensation or sympathy. I hope so.

If not, perhaps we can dispense with the notion that it was some outside force that inflicted such "second class" status on the Arabs of Israel; that was a clear and predictable result of the combination of the Arab rejection of Partition and the actual survival of Israel. Surviving the war pushed for something closer to demonstrably defensible and defended borders than the almost twists and turns of Partition.

Had the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and those West of the Green line simply agreed to Partition, those for whom it was important would have had their state, which would have been largely judenrein.
10.18.2007 4:51pm
Elliot123 (mail):
I'm not sure about the origins of animosity against Jews in the Arab countries, but it is currently a very valuable tool for those who don't want to face the general failure of Arab culture to keep up with the progress of the West or much of the East.

There is a constant effort in Arab nations to deflect attention from internal problems to the external "problem" of Israel. Unemployment, poor schools, underperforming economies, despotism, corruption, health care, and poverty all take a back seat to Israel. There is a very widesperad reluctance to face these problems, and an eagerness to rant against Israel instead. However, the most infuriating aspect of the situation is the progress Israel has made while the Arabs have at best been treading water.
10.18.2007 4:55pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Levavi -- Wiki says the Baathist party was founded by an Orthodox Christian and a Sunni Muslim. So you can stop with the gratuitous anti-Catholic smearing.
10.18.2007 4:59pm
hattio1:
I have to disagree with both sides regarding whether the proper analogy is to the Jim Crow south or to the ending of slavery. There's one key distinction. In both the case of slave-owning plantation owners, and poor white southerners, those who "lost" something when the situation changed were profiting by the previous situation, and, to some extent, responsible for creating or maintaining the previous situation. Arabs in the Middle-East weren't especially profiting by the lack of a homeland for Israel. You can say that Arabs were profiting by the second-class status of Jews in the ME. But Israel wasn't created for the benefit of Middle-Eastern Jews, but for European Jews.
10.18.2007 5:14pm
Wince and Nod (mail) (www):
10.18.2007 5:54pm
abb3w:
DavidBernstein: WF, that's a very interesting comment, but I think how to get people to act rationally is beyond my expertise.

The first step is to open minds. The surest way of doing this is demographics: educate the wide-eyed and impressionable young and outlive the problem. The second best is to divide and conquer, and cause one portion of the closed-minded to consider (rationally or not) the other as potentially a greater threat, and set aside their prior distaste for the previous "enemy". Küntzel's speech hints at one possible direction:
At the very time when the liberation of women from the inferiority decreed by Islam was gradually getting under way the Muslim Brotherhood set itself up as the rallying point for the restoration of patriarchal domination.
I suggest the West should be focusing a lot more on effort on Islamic women, especially in Iraq. They're the ones with the most to gain.



[Countess Vorkosigan] steered him down the long room. "There are, as you have just seen, two agendas being pursued here tonight," the Countess lectured amiably. "The political one of the old men [...] and the genetic agenda of the old women. The men imagine theirs is the only one, but that's just an ego-serving self-delusion. The whole Vor system is founded on the women's game, underneath. The old men in government councils spend their lives arguing against or scheming to fund this or that bit of off-planet military hardware. Meanwhile, the uterine replicator is creeping in past their guard, and they aren't even conscious that the debate that will fundamentally alter Barrayar's future is being carried on right now among their wives and daughters. [...] Look around tonight, Mark. You're witnessing the last generation of men and women on Barrayar who will dance this dance in the old way. The Vor system is about to change on its blindest side, the side that looks to—or fails to look to—its foundation. Another half generation from now, it's not going to know what hit it."
——Mirror Dance, Lois McMaster Bujold
10.18.2007 6:30pm
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Though no one in the vicinity was apparently bothered by 600 years of Turkish Imperialism in the ME. It's well known that the Turks were such mellow imperialists.
Arab hatred at the Turks was very real, of course--but oddly enough, the riots in the 1860s in Jerusalem weren't directed at Turks (who were the government, and also Muslims), but at Jews (who were weak because they lacked the right of self-defense, and weren't Muslims).

There's no question in my mind that Hitler's anti-Semitism provided a useful model for Muslim contempt for other groups to turn into its modern Muslim anti-Semitism. But you have to wonder how much of this is economic as well. Can you imagine anything more galling to someone who believes that their religion makes them special in the eyes of God--and in spite of sitting on top of oceans of petroleum, not just Jews, but Christians, and a bunch of cattle-worshipping heathens (which are well below People of the Book in Muslim theology) are overtaking Muslims?

Saul Friedlaender's second volume and the Nazis and the Jews points out the weird situation where Nazi Germany, before embarking on the Final Solution (and even after getting it under way) was still trying to do swaps where they would exchange Jews for hard currency--but the problem was always where to send them.

Germany was still trying to keep good relations with Arabs as part of the wartime alliance against Britain, and so sending them to Palestine was not feasible. Britain had the same interest in not seeing them go to Palestine, along with concern about putting hard currency into Germany's hands during the war.
10.18.2007 7:23pm
Joel Rosenberg (mail) (www):
But Israel wasn't created for the benefit of Middle-Eastern Jews, but for European Jews.

This will, no doubt, come as a great surprise to those Jews from Arab countries, and their children, grandchildren, etc., who fled the Arab countries for Israel. Maybe you should tell them that Israel wasn't created for their benefit; I bet that they don't know that.

Israel was created as a necessity for Jews everywhere, both those in the galut, and those then in the fraction of the Palestine Mandate that became Israel.
10.18.2007 7:46pm
LM (mail):
hattio1:

I would suggest that one way to get people to act rationally is to assume their capable of it. If you take as an article of fact that no peace settlement is possible, the chances of a peace settlement drop precipitously.

So you're saying we should blame Arab anti-Semitism on DB's soft bigotry of low expectations?
10.18.2007 8:25pm
hattio1:
I didn't say it didn't benefit ME Jews. Just that those are not the ones it was designed to benefit. To take it back to the slavery analogy, there were many Native American slaves being held by other Native Americans in Alaska when it was sold to the US by Russia. Those slaves benefitted from the Emancipation Proclamation, but they surely ain't who Lincoln had in mind. There's actually a totem pole with Lincoln at the top. The current one's a replica of course, but the original was made in the early 1870's if I recall correctly.
10.18.2007 8:26pm
Randy R. (mail):
hsh: "But, I'm sure that Chamberlain played some role in this. Perhaps it is him we should blame for our existences.

The mind boggles."

But of course, Hitler declared war on the US shortly after the Japanese bombing, as you will recall. I guess lots of people can share the blame for WWII, but most people concede that Hitler was one of the main culprits. And most people agree that the baby-boomers occured because of that war.

It does indeed boggle the mind how our world would be different with that war. Perhaps no Cold War? Would the Soviet Union and the US be the only superpowers? Many German cities would still have their old character but for the allied bombing. Dresden, for one. But those are other issues that deviate from the discussion at hand.
10.18.2007 8:46pm
David Levavi (mail):
Tony Tutins:

Its sad, especially in these scoundrel times, to hear a lay Roman Catholic defend his church from minor and entirely legitimate criticism. It seems no amount of humiliation or insult will shake a benumbed and confused American Catholic laity from lockstep loyalty to its Roman priesthood. The pope and his priests are unworthy of their flock.

All the best to you and yours, Tony. I wish you no ill. But you need a reality check. You need to follow St. Paul and remove the scales from your eyes. In 1944, George Orwell remarked on the inability of English Catholics to recognize manifest evidence, clear to all non-Catholics, that the Vatican supported Hitler and the Nazis. The catholic hierarchy compromises the honesty of ordinary Roman Catholics by forcing them to defend the indefensible.

My family lived in the Ancient City under the Turks since the early Nineteenth Century. My birth certificate identifies me and my parents as Palestinian. Members of my family were business partners with prominent and titled Arabs. Under Menachem Begin, my mother’s oldest brother once carried the highest price on his head in the British Empire. My family suffered prolonged starvation in Jerusalem in the nineteen-forties. My brother was killed by Glubb Pasha’s Transjordanian Legionnaires. I know something of the tenor and texture of recent Middle East history. My criticism of the Roman Church’s attitude toward Jews and the State of Israel is mild and anything but gratuitous.

You have my sympathy, Tony. I can’t imagine what could be going on in the minds of lay Catholics today. I don’t wonder that they feel shaken and put upon. If Jewish rabbis were settling suits for the kinds of crimes Catholic priests and whole Catholic orders including the Jesuits and Franciscans are accused of, I would hide my head for shame. But I would also read the sonsofbitches the riot act, something lay Catholics seem incapable of doing to their priests.

The best approach to consideration of the Roman Church is that of the Christian Evangelicals. Love the sinner and hate the sin. Lay Catholics are sinners like the rest of us and deserve our best wishes. The Roman Catholic Church is another matter.
10.18.2007 9:36pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
10.18.2007 9:48pm
Paul Barnes (mail):
David Levavi:

ahahahaha...ass.

The evidence is very, very clear regarding the role of the Vatican and Pope Pius XI and XII. They were opposed to the Nazi regime, and Pius saved thousands of Jewish lives through his various interventions.
10.18.2007 10:55pm
Randy R. (mail):
Actually, the role of the Vatican was indeed clear, and he supported Hitler and the Nazis. Few people know it, but there were opening ceremonies to each of the concentration camps. At each, there were Catholic Cardinals to bless the ceremonies. I've seen the actual photographs myself, and the cardinals have their hands raised in a Heil Hitler salute, and can also be seen walking behind Nazi generals.

Most people think that the Nazis were a-religious. Not at all. All german troops had access to catholic chaplains at any time.

Additionally, the Vatican sent a letter in 1932 urging all German bishops to support Hitler and urge his election as chancellor. Once installed, the Vatican was the first foreign state to recognize the Nazi takeover in 1933.

More importantly, in 1939 Italy, about 99% of the population was Catholic, and in Germany it was a large minority. (A majority in some parts). All the Pope had to do was say that no good Catholic should take up arms. Just saying that would have prevented Italy from entering WWII at all, and would severly have weakened Hitler's support. Remember, this was a time when people actually obeyed the Pope. No one, including Hitler or Mussolini, would have been able to counter such an argument.

(Or perhaps they could have. We will never know, because it wasn't even attempted). We do know, however, that when two S. American countries threatened war against each other in the 1980s, Pope John Paul II told them that there will be no war, and that ended that. Surely, such a proclaimation in 1939 would have carried great weight with the public.

I know this is a hot topic, and one that won't be settled here. Suffice it to say that these are hardly the actions of an institution opposed to the Nazi regime.
10.19.2007 2:17am
Michael B (mail):
No Randy, "just saying that" would not have prevented Italy from entering the war. There was a large scale cooptation of the people in Italy, by Mussolini's fascist party, during which time the ideological and practical concerns related to Leninist/Stalinist designs played prominently; world politics wasn't taking place in a vacuum. This was a time when the Left wasn't being coopted but rather was actively and enthusiastically supporting Stalinist initiatives, Spain representing but one example and people from George Bernard Shaw to Walter Duranty variously serving as apologists for Stalin's Soviet, including during the famine in the Ukraine, the earlier Red Terror, various purges, etc.

Again, world history wasn't taking place in a vacuum.

Additionally German officers would commonly discourage enlisted personnel from any associations with Christian churches, the more restrained forms of that general and broadly based attitude, for example in the lower and more peripheral echelons of the army, involved daily mockings of such associations; such reflected that often gradual cooptation of that and other publics.

That apologizes not a jot or tittle of what actually did take place, but what did take place is at variance, shall we say, with Randy's version of events, not the least of which concern prominent and decisive omissions.
10.19.2007 8:10am
Warmongering Lunatic:
Horse hockey?

The British clearly did allow Jewish immigration, even if they increasingly restricted it as time went on. Or are you going to pretend they outright banned it from day one? Any allowed immigration is sufficient to explain the genesis of a belief (reasonable or not) by the Muslims of the area that the British favored the Jews.

Similarly, inadequacy of British defense of Jews does not indicate nonexistence of British defense. For that matter, the fact that there were Jews capable of self-defense without the British launching an effective campaign to suppress them would be enough to force a re-evaluation of the view of Jews as a powerless people.

Certainly, the British were hardly hearty, fully committed partisans of the Zionist cause. But they were sufficiently pro-Zionist, however marginally to an objective observer, to create a soil in which the European view of the Jews as shadowy manipulators of the world could take root.
10.19.2007 9:20am
Tony Tutins (mail):
Levavi -- Simply confine yourself to accusations you can support with facts, and try to be even-handed. I notice you're not demonizing the YMCA simply because Eichmann was a member. Nor do you credit Germany's Catholic Center Pary for its anti-antisemitic position, for example tossing antisemitic candidates off the election list.

I admit that Austrian antisemites were Catholic, because except for a few Lutherans, rump Austrians were either Catholic or Jewish. By the same token, French antisemites were Catholic.
10.19.2007 12:15pm
J.Early (mail):
guest1100 said (10.18.2007 2:18pm)
IMO, the main causes of bad feelings towards Arabs are Arabs hard-line policies, throwing out/killing virtualy all Jews in all Arab lands, and one-sidesness of Russian support for Arabs, which the Jews blame on the influence of expediency and anti-Semitism.

In the UN General Assembly in 1947, Russia (then USSR) voted in favor of the partition of Palestine. This partition created Israel. Russia is now one of the "quartet" responsible for the "road map" agreement for settling the Mideast conflict.

And doesn't the rest of your post speak much more about the UN than anything else?

Your argument that all the rest of the UN is anti-Israel is just plain stupid. Those 40 US vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions without a single supporting "no" vote from any of the 14 other members are a disgrace.
10.19.2007 12:35pm
Steve Rosenbach (www):
RickM - I originally found the information about Michel Aflaq in Dr. Fouad Ajami's book, "The Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Generation's Odyssey"

Tony Tutins' comment is correct, in that Aflaq was born to a Greek Orthodox (not Catholic) family in Syria. It is not Aflaq's religion, but his pan-Arabism, into which he embedded fascist and national socialist philosophy, which is important.

This brings up a good point -- it is not Islam per se that we should be talking about, but rather Arab political culture. Other than post-1979 Iran, it is the off-kilter and blood-soaked landscape of Arab political culture that is the nemisis, not only of us, but of the various Arab peoples.
10.19.2007 1:02pm
markm (mail):
J. Early: Yes, it certainly is a disgrace that every time the Arabs attacked Israel, the USA was the only nation to vote against censuring Israel for defending itself.
10.19.2007 1:19pm
guest1100:
In the UN General Assembly in 1947, Russia (then USSR) voted in favor of the partition of Palestine. This partition created Israel. Russia is now one of the "quartet" responsible for the "road map" agreement for settling the Mideast conflict.
J. Early, it is of interest that in order to argue against the notion of Russian support for the Arabs of late you go back over 60 years. Is it your contention that the Russia of years ago, the land of the Protocols, the pogroms and the Pale was a particularly Jew-friendly place?

Your argument that all the rest of the UN is anti-Israel is just plain stupid. Those 40 US vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions without a single supporting "no" vote from any of the 14 other members are a disgrace.
It might be stupid, except for the fact that
1. it is sadly overtly obvious, and it gives me no joy to say so, and
2. I never said 'all' the members of the UN so you are erecting your own little strawman.
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know the only one of the 185 or so UN members who are not eligible for the Security Council? Do you truly wish to engage in a discussion of whether the UN suffers from institutional anti-Semitism? Trust me, you won't like the result J. Early.
10.19.2007 2:02pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
J. Early,

After the Russian support of the partition resolution they changed sides. Ever since they have been strong supporters of the Arab position (from the Jordan to the Sea) on Palestine.

Their earlier support of the Arabs was political (anti-US). Their current support is more pragmatic. Turmoil in the ME raises the value of Russian oil.
10.19.2007 2:31pm
Gary Aminoff (mail) (www):
"Anti-Semitism having seeped into the Muslim world from Nazi propaganda beginning in the 1930s is hardly groundbreaking, and does not belie that Muslims, while contemptuous of both Jews and Christians, treated religious minorities relatively well until mass Jewish migration to Palestine. "

Whoever wrote this obviously is ignorant of Jewish-Muslim history. My family is from Central Asia which had a thriving Jewish community as part of the Persian Empire for centuries. I can tell you that the Jews were not treated relatively well (whatever that means) during the 18th, 19th and 20th Century in Central Asia.....long before Jewish migration to Palestine. Read history. It is very enlightening.
10.19.2007 2:49pm
Paul Barnes (mail) (www):
Randy R.

Unfortunately, the Pope did try to prevent Italy from entering the war. If all my books were not packed away because of a move, I could offer a more substantive account of this. However, let me just offer some books that you may like to check out (I am not 100% sure of the authors...because the books are packed away):

Hitler and the Vatican - Godman
Papal Diplomacy in the Modern Age - Peter Kent and John Pollard
The Myth of Hitlers Pope - Dalin

However, I will grant that there were particular members of the clergy, even high ranking ones, that fully supported the Nazi regime. The Godman book in particular looks at those people. Yet, it was understood that the Vatican (and Pius XI and XII) were strongly opposed to the racialism and religious nature of Nazi Germany.

I would also recommend the Kent and Pollard book, which is a collection of essays be historians on many different aspects of Vatican diplomacy, but which has a few chapters of Italian and Vatican relations.

I think that the preponderance of evidence showed that the Vatican was opposed to the Nazis. Whether they adopted the wisest policy is another debate, and one that, quite frankly, I do not think is fair to even have, what with hindsight and all...
10.19.2007 4:20pm
gasman (mail):
The post seems to be an appologist's note that Islam hate jews (and christians, and every other non Islamist entity they encounter) because of Hitler. Why do we have to blame some dead whacked out German for the poor behavior of those alive today.

While true that we might be able to draw a connection between past events and the behaviors of certain groups, every individual is personally responsible for their own actions and beliefs. When people become stuck in the wrong beliefs and actions of their fathers we don't excuse their wrongness, for they have the opportunity to think differently, but have chosen otherwise.
10.19.2007 8:15pm
David Levavi (mail):
Tony Tutins, Rick M:

I owe you an apology, Tony. I thought Aflaq was Maronite (hence “of the Catholic Communion” in my original statement). Fouad Adjami’s is an elegant and thoughtful voice and I read Dream Palace when it was published. This was several years ago, however, and I don’t recall a fellow named Aflaq. I don’t dispute that he’s in there somewhere but the Dream Palace of the Arabs is such a big place. The only Aflaq I know is an insurance company using a duck in its advertising in imitation of another insurance company using a lizard.

That said, I would insist that the substance and thrust of my argument is valid. Pan Arabism is rooted in Christian Arabs seeking to ingratiate themselves with their Muslim Arab neighbors at the expense of the Jews. The Christians were selling antisemitism as a common bond between Muslim and Christian Arabs. Pan Arabism is an attempt to recenter Arab Culture under national and racial standards and reduce its Islamic character.

The current Jihad and the collapse of Arab Christian populations in the Middle East marks the failure of the Christian Pan Arabist enterprise. A case of an arsonist burning down his own house in the attempt to burn down someone else’s. If it makes you feel better, Tony, I like the Greek Orthodox Church even less than I like its Roman Catholic competition.

Rick, you sound like a thoughtful and reasoned fellow whose library suggests an interest in Papal and Vatican complicity in the unspeakable crimes of the Third Reich. On balance you feel the Vatican’s failure was one of policy opposite preference. Here’s my take:

Christianity was born in competition to Judaism. The Roman Catholic Church has been antisemitic since the Emperor Constantine, a worshipper of the sun god Helios, changed the date of Christmas from the true lunar date of Passover Eve to the twenty-fifth of December in the solar calendar and moved Christianity into the Sunday camp. In its sixteen hundred some odd years of history, the Roman church has far exceeded the cruelty of the ancient Romans in its treatment of Jews. Crucifixion is a walk in the park compared to some of the horrors visited on Jews by Roman Catholic priests.

The Vatican backed Franco and the Vatican backed Mussolini. It far preferred fascism to communism. Communism competed with Christianity and Fascism did not. The Vatican could come to terms with a fascist dictator as it had with royals throughout its history. Not so with a politburo of the people no matter how covertly dictatorial and corrupt. Rabbi Marx had declared religion unkosher.

I believe the Pope was looking out for the number one and the organization. His only real problem with the Nazis was Hitler and one or two other fanatics and volk worshippers. The Church had waited out difficult royals more than once in its time. Without Hitler cooperation between the Vatican and the Reichshtag was entirely feasable. Desirable, even, by both sides. I believe the Vatican was playing for time while twenty million people were annhilated, most of them Christian. And silence is complicity.

Anyway, so much for chatter. We’re packing for a camping trip. Good Sabbath, all.
10.19.2007 8:18pm
M. Simon (mail) (www):
"Mein Kampf" is a best seller (still) in the Arabic world.

The fact that Islamics were predisposed to the message because of their religion didn't help.
10.19.2007 9:03pm
J.Early (mail):
guest1100 said (10.19.2007 1:02pm) —
"In the UN General Assembly in 1947, Russia (then USSR) voted in favor of the partition of Palestine."
J. Early, it is of interest that in order to argue against the notion of Russian support for the Arabs of late you go back over 60 years. Is it your contention that the Russia of years ago, the land of the Protocols, the pogroms and the Pale was a particularly Jew-friendly place?

The Soviet communists discriminated against Judaism as a religion (partly because the regime was officially atheistic), but so far as I can see they did not discriminate against Jews as a hereditary group. And in any case, the Soviets faced the same difficulty that the Nazis did: no reliable way of distinguishing Jews and non-Jews.

Russia's vote for the partition of Palestine in 1947 gives the lie to the notion that Russia has always been anti-Israel and pro-Arab. Also, expediency has often been a reason for supporting one side or the other. For example, the UK opposed partition in 1947 (but abstained in the UN vote), then sided with Israel and France in the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the USA sided with Egypt's Nasser.

"Those 40 US vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions without a single supporting "no" vote from any of the 14 other members are a disgrace."
2. I never said 'all' the members of the UN so you are erecting your own little strawman.

It is not a strawman, little or otherwise. In the period 1972 to 2006, there must have been dozens of nations that had an opportunity to vote "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes, but none ever did. You are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know the only one of the 185 or so UN members who are not eligible for the Security Council?

So maybe Israel is not electable to the UN Security Council — big deal. That doesn't explain why no other member of the Security Council ever voted "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes.
10.19.2007 9:22pm
guest1100:
The Soviet communists discriminated against Judaism as a religion (partly because the regime was officially atheistic), but so far as I can see they did not discriminate against Jews as a hereditary group. And in any case, the Soviets faced the same difficulty that the Nazis did: no reliable way of distinguishing Jews and non-Jews.

J Early, your covoluted differentiation between Russian anti-Semitism based on religion vs heredity I am sure would be comforting to the countless Jews killed and maimed and persecuted over the years by Russians for nothing more than being Jewish.

Also, it is duly noted that when it was pointed out that to counter the clear fact that Russia has been overtly on the Arab side of late you were forced to go back many decades to point out one vote that in no way whatsoever makes the point you think . It has also been noted that you have done nothing to respond to that obvious point about Russian favoritsm. As you can not do so, please let it go.

It is not a strawman, little or otherwise. In the period 1972 to 2006, there must have been dozens of nations that had an opportunity to vote "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes, but none ever did. You are trying to excuse the inexcusable.
You tried to claim I said 'all' the members of the UN this or that. I never said that, and you know I never said that. So nice job destroying that (non)strawmen (little or otherwise).


So maybe Israel is not electable to the UN Security Council — big deal. That doesn't explain why no other member of the Security Council ever voted "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes.
Maybe? There is no maybe. Israel is the one and only. Odd that you don't wonder why they are the one and only country stuck in that situtation. What does that say about you?Perhaps it is not a big deal to you; that wouldn't surprise me in the least. But its just the tip of a very big iceberg that is the UN's institutional anti-Semitism. Or is it your position that the UN treats Israel just like every other country?
Also, you repeatedly mention 40 resolutions that the US vetoed like that somehow proves something about Israel. But what did these resolutions contain? Condeming Israel for killing a terrorist leader like Yassin? Condemning Israel for building a fence that has been proven effective at protecting people from being blown up? Condemning Israel for threatening to expel a terror leader like Arafat? And the like? If so, then I would again say it says more about the deplorable state UN and world diplomacy than anything else.
10.19.2007 11:02pm
Randy R. (mail):
" Yet, it was understood that the Vatican (and Pius XI and XII) were strongly opposed to the racialism and religious nature of Nazi Germany. "

Then please explain why Pius sent a letter urging bishops to support Hitler, and why the Vatican was the first foreign country to recognize him as chancellor?

Again, this issue is complicated, and I'm sure the truth is in the middle somewhere. But this notion that the pope and the Vatican were always totally against Hitler and the Nazis is simply false. There are points where we can identify real support for Hitler. Like at the concentration camps.
10.20.2007 2:18am
Randy R. (mail):
You know, it's sorta funny. Here was had a world war that involved three major Axis powers, Germany, Italy and Japan. The war required total commitment from a large segment of their populations and institutions -- you simply cannot wage war for six years with out such support.

Yet, today, we are told that virtually no one supported the Fascists or the Nazis. These strange groups just dropped out of the sky, hypnotized a few natives, and waged war while the entire population of the Axis countries secretely, but unsuccessfully, tried to undermine them.

Then after the war, a few leaders were caught, and poof! The rest just disappeared into the ether, never to be seen again, leaving the rest of population bewildered as to just what happened. Gosh, no one knows why or how these Nazis and Fascists were able to exist.

Well, I for one, don't buy it.
10.20.2007 2:23am
neurodoc:
Back on 3/15, in response to a 3/14 DB post, burrnini applauded use of the "heckler's veto" to keep Professor Kuentzel from conducting an invited, university-sponsored, two-day workshop at the University of Leeds on "Hitler's Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East." burrnini said at the time that he was inclined "to write the vice chancellor and thank him for putting a stop to something clearly meant to offend." Well, it seems that after more than 6 months, the professor has finally been allowed to present his scholarship before a University of Leeds audience, albeit a precised version of what he would have been able to present if allowed to teach back in March. I look forward to reading the transcript of his lecture linked to above.

Maybe burrnini is upset now that the "heckler's veto" was finally been overridden at the University of Leeds. I am upset that it should ever have kept the professor from teaching there, and heartened that finally he has been allowed to do so.

volokh.com/posts/1173901930.shtml

[Note: The email address for that burrnini person who posted back on 3/15 was burrnini@yahoo.mail. Curiously, Brian K, who regularly jumps in to criticize just about any DB post supportive of Israel or in any way critical of Muslims, lists his email address as burrnini@hotmail.com. But Brian K insists he is not the same burrnini who posted on 3/15, the yahoo.com one, rather he is a different burrnini, the hotmail.com one, and any similarities in email addresses and other characteristics are mere coincidence. Interestingly, Brian K, the hotmail burrnini commented on 9/24/07, "this reminds me an awful lot of the heckler's veto posts on this website that were recently brought to my attention."

Now, Brian K explained back on 9/24/07 in the course of another DB post, "the e-mail, right? i picked up my throwaway e-mail address from somewhere...i read burrnini on a blog (can't remember which one...can't even say how long ago) and it stuck in my head"; "it is a throwaway e-mail address used to limit the amount of spam i go through." Others can judge for themselves the plausibility of this explanation on its face. To resolve any doubt about just one or two different burrninis, Brian K could ask our host Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at Brian K's alma mater, to tell us whether the hotmail burrnine's posts come from the same IP address as the did the yahoo burrnini's 3/15 post, but he has declined to do so.]
10.20.2007 10:42am
J.Early (mail):
guest 1100 said (10.19.2007 10:02pm) —
it is duly noted that when it was pointed out that to counter the clear fact that Russia has been overtly on the Arab side of late you were forced to go back many decades to point out one vote that in no way whatsoever makes the point you think

What is wrong with going back a few decades when others go back centuries in trying to understand the roots of the Mideast conflict?

What I want to know is why a country that has been traditionally regarded as ant-Semitic voted to create Israel.

You tried to claim I said 'all' the members of the UN this or that. I never said that, and you know I never said that.

OK, name just one pro-Israel UN member (other than Israel) that would have voted "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes but never had an opportunity to do so.

Odd that you don't wonder why they are the one and only country stuck in that situtation

Israel is not "the one and only country stuck in that situation." For example, the UN suspended South Africa, even though worse regimes have not been suspended. Other countries have been subjected to UN sanctions.

Also, you repeatedly mention 40 resolutions that the US vetoed like that somehow proves something about Israel. But what did these resolutions contain?

Just stuff like failure to comply with the 4th Geneva Convention and previous Security Council resolutions.
10.20.2007 12:30pm
Michael B (mail):
"Odd that you don't wonder why they are the one and only country stuck in that situtation"
"Israel is not "the one and only country stuck in that situation." For example, the UN suspended South Africa, even though worse regimes have not been suspended. Other countries have been subjected to UN sanctions."
Israel is the only country to have been condemned, multiple times, by what flies under the flag of "human rights" at the UN - the UNHRC - a Kafkaesque scenario on the contemporary geo-political scene if ever there was one. They haven't condemned Sudan, they haven't condemned Zimbabwe, they haven't condemned any Arab Muslim state whatsoever, they haven't condemned North Korea, they haven't condemned China. Instead - and therefore instead of standing for more genuine conceptions of human rights - they've been coopted by the Arab League, by the African Union, by Chinese threats, in general by a brutish power politics that leverages money, power and corrupt influence in general in the putatively hallowed halls of the UN.

That is not to condemn every nook and crany of the UN, but it most certainly serves to condemn a great deal indeed that does take place in what was once a more elevated institution.

Those putatively hallowed halls have come to reflect a labyrinth of primary moral and political deceits, denials, obfuscations, submissions to raw power and other ploys. For those who more sincerely and more substantially wish to delve into the swamp that is the UN's perduringly base set of initiatives against Israel, one place to start will be with the Security Council resolutions and the General Assembly resolutions. That will only be the beginning as there is a tangle and a dense thicket of history that will additionally need to be tackled.

The UN has become a maze, a labyrinth, of primary moral and political and historical deceits. That's not all it is, but such nonetheless is a fundamental aspect of what it has become - or better put, of what it has been allowed to become. That is the reality that is the United Nations in 2007.
10.20.2007 3:12pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Then please explain why Pius sent a letter urging bishops to support Hitler, and why the Vatican was the first foreign country to recognize him as chancellor?

But this notion that the pope and the Vatican were always totally against Hitler and the Nazis is simply false. There are points where we can identify real support for Hitler. Like at the concentration camps.


I don't know about letters between Pius (which Pius?) and the bishops. But the Nazi Party was the democratically elected ruling party. Had Pope John-Paul II sent a letter to the American bishops urging them to acknowledge Gore instead of Bush as the duly elected President, I'm sure we'd all be taken aback.

Further, we look at the Nazi regime knowing full well the extent of its horrors. Who in the early 30s would have known that it was the face of pure evil? The Brits and French attempted to appease Hitler up till the last minute -- I'd say they were fooled.

I am also unfamiliar with any Vatican approval for concentration camps. Plenty of priests, religious, and ordinary Catholics were exterminated in those same camps. In fact, people will remember there was a bit of a kerfluffle when nuns wanted to honor the memory of their co-religionists killed at Auschwitz, including Saint Maximilian Kolbe, by erecting a cross.
10.20.2007 4:18pm
J.Early (mail):
Michael B (10.20.2007 2:12pm) —
Israel is the only country to have been condemned, multiple times, by what flies under the flag of "human rights" at the UN — the UNHRC — a Kafkaesque scenario on the contemporary geo-political scene if ever there was one.

I have already given South Africa as an example of another country that was picked on by the UN. And South Africa was suspended from the UN — Israel was never suspended. The UN has imposed sanctions on other countries — e.g., North Korea, Iran, Rwanda, and Sudan. So Israel has not been "singled out."

If those 40 UN Security Council resolutions against Israel that were vetoed by the US were so terrible, then how come none of the other 14 members of the council ever joined the US in opposing them? I have to keep asking the same question over and over again.
10.20.2007 6:34pm
guest1100:
<i>What is wrong with going back a few decades when others go back centuries in trying to understand the roots of the Mideast conflict? </i>
What is wrong with it? The point made was that Russia <i><b>is</b></i> clearly pro-Arab and anti-Israel. To counter that claim, you were forced to point to a single vote many decades ago which reflects not at all on the question at end.
So in answer to your question, there is nothing wrong with you going back 60 years except it has nothing to do with the topic and fails utterly to accomplish what you think it does.
<i>
OK, name just one pro-Israel UN member (other than Israel) that would have voted "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes but never had an opportunity to do so.</i>
This has nothing to do with what the point was. You havea disturbing problem staying on task.

<i>Israel is not "the one and only country stuck in that situation." For example, the UN suspended South Africa, even though worse regimes have not been suspended. Other countries have been subjected to UN sanctions. </i>
South Africa's situation was not at all the same as Israel's. Do you understand that bringing up an unrelated situation does not change the <b>fact</b> that Israel, as previously stated, is the only country stuck in that situation? If not, and it does not appear you do, there is not much point in continuing, is there? You may as well say Israel is not the only one in that situation because the sky is blue.
10.20.2007 7:07pm
Michael B (mail):
Firstly, you are not responding to what was said concerning the UNHRC, the UN agency specifically setup to deal with and focus upon human rights. (It's predecessor, the UNCHR, had an even worse track record.) Secondly, that being the case (you need to research and verify, apparently, for your own sake), why not employ your own logic and ask: if the UNHRC has condemned Israel and no other state, not North Korea!, China!, Sudan!, Zimbabwe! nor any Arab Muslim state! - then why doesn't that tell you something? Why isn't that a question you are asking yourself "over and over again"?

More basically still, if your concern is great enough, or sufficient enough, that you are asking yourself such questions, why haven't you taken the time to do a sufficient amount of research in the first place? It's a tangled mess, I'll allow that, but if one is in fact going to venture assertive opinions on such a topical and important, even decisive subject, why not venture those opinions on the basis of the facts at hand? (Likewise, why not ask yourself why reporting on the Oil for Bribes scandal did not receive more MSM attention? Or the UN's sex scandals? Or some other scandals originating out of those "sanctified" halls?)

Finally, what South Africa are you referring to? During the apartheid era, or subsequently?

Finally again, I can begin to review some of the SC resolutions you're referring to and the poor and in some instances risible "logic" they stand on, but again, the fact is, and especially so given the availability of information on the net, if people are going to venture assertive opinions on important topics, they should be encouraged to do so on the basis of information that is available. The UN is not merely corrupt, it is profoundly and malevolently corrupt far too often.

Have a good evening.
10.20.2007 7:19pm
J.Early (mail):
guest1100 said,
So in answer to your question, there is nothing wrong with you going back 60 years except it has nothing to do with the topic and fails utterly to accomplish what you think it does.

What do you mean, it has nothing to do with the topic? Russia's vote in favor of creating Israel has a hell of a lot to do with the topics here. Other commenters claim that Russia has been anti-Israel or that the Arabs blame Russia for helping to create Israel.

BTW, Russia (Soviet Union) was also one of the first coumtries to recognize Israel.

OK, name just one pro-Israel UN member (other than Israel) that would have voted "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes but never had an opportunity to do so.
This has nothing to do with what the point was. You havea disturbing problem staying on task.

You denied that you said that all the UN members except the USA are anti-Israel — so I asked you to name another UN member that is not anti-Israel.

South Africa's situation was not at all the same as Israel's.

Israel has often been compared to South Africa.

Michael B said,
Firstly, you are not responding to what was said concerning the UNHRC, the UN agency specifically setup to deal with and focus upon human rights.

I am looking at the UN's actions as a whole and not just at the actions of one UN agency.

The UN is not merely corrupt, it is profoundly and malevolently corrupt far too often.

Granted, there is a lot of corruption in the UN. But that doesn't explain why none of the other 14 members of the Security Council ever voted "no" in support of any of the approx. 40 US vetoes of resolutions aimed at Israel in the period 1972-2006.
10.21.2007 12:08am
Michael B (mail):
"... just at the actions of one UN agency." J.Early

The current UNHRC is not simply just another or merely "one UN agency." It is the specific and sole UN agency whose primary and whose singular and dedicated mandate is with human rights abuses on a national and international scale.

Framed differently, we don't expect UNICEF to be concerned, in terms of their more primary purpose and mandate, with advancing censure against offending states. Hence if UNICEF (or UNESCO, etc.) fails to make if a priority to advance pronouncements against Sudan, North Korea, etc., there's no reason to take note of such omissions because 1) that's not what such agencies are tasked with doing and 2) they are not evidencing extreme forms of prejudice by singling out one nation/state (Israel) while failing to advance similar initiatives against truly egregious offenders. By contrast, the UNHRC is specifically and singly tasked with oversight concerning human rights abuses, yet they fail to advance primary censuring initiatives against countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe - and instead do advance such initiatives against Israel. It would be similar to advancing initiatives against Mexico for its harsh, treatment of illegal aliens on its southern border or its occasional mistreatment of some indian subcultres, while failing to take note of Arab Muslims reigning in Sudan and that imposter's distatorial and murderous rule in Zimbabwe.

Framed differently still, it's essentially a strawman to note that the UN in general and in terms of its primary bodies and agents (the General Assembly, the Security Council and the office of the Secretary-General) are not only focusing on Israel. Of course they're not, if they were they'd be subjecting themselves to ridicule from every thinking quarter of the the globe that still had the remnant of a conscience remaining. But again, the UNHRC is singly and foremost (suppose to be) dedicated to human rights abuses.
10.21.2007 3:39pm
guest1100:
What do you mean, it has nothing to do with the topic? Russia's vote in favor of creating Israel has a hell of a lot to do with the topics here.
J Early, lets go through it for the last time and then call it a day. The initial point was that Russia IS pro-Arab. Pointing to a single Russian vote 60 years ago has nothing at all to do with whether Russia IS extremely pro-Arab and has been for some years. Please tell me you at least see the difference between IS (current tense) and an event over 60 years ago? Granted, you have shown a disturbing inability to stay on-topic, but you do at lease see the difference here, yes?

South Africa's situation was not at all the same as Israel's.
Israel has often been compared to South Africa.


Yes, and as previously stated, the sky remains blue. The point originally made referred to a specific status that applies and has applied only to Israel. You then came up with an entirely different and unrelated situation with South Africa. So to start, your original attempt to invoke South Africa is either a red herring, a correctable mistake on your part, or stupidity. Your call, but at this point, who cares what your excuse is?
And now your compound your mistake/red herring/idiocy by trying to justify it by claiming that because you believe Israel is often compared (mistakenly) to South Africa that somehow in your universe that must mean that their situations are ipso facto the same. Brilliant!

As an aside, please explain why Israel was wrong and worthy of condemnation for killing a terrorist like Yassin?
10.21.2007 6:37pm
J.Early (mail):
Michael B said,
Framed differently still, it's essentially a strawman to note that the UN in general and in terms of its primary bodies and agents (the General Assembly, the Security Council and the office of the Secretary-General) are not only focusing on Israel.

One of the reasons for all the condemnation of Israel in the UN is that the USA has misused its veto to prevent the UN Security Council from taking real action against Israel.

guest1100 said,
J Early, lets go through it for the last time and then call it a day.

Russia not only voted to partition Palestine, but also was one of the first nations to recognize Israel. Now we can call it a day.

You then came up with an entirely different and unrelated situation with South Africa.

South Africa's situation is not unrelated. It has been claimed here that Israel was singled out by the UN, but that is simply not true. The UN suspended South Africa and has imposed sanctions on other countries.

As an aside, please explain why Israel was wrong and worthy of condemnation for killing a terrorist like Yassin?

After you explain why it was wrong to assassinate Kahane.
10.21.2007 8:02pm
guest1100:
Russia not only voted to partition Palestine, but also was one of the first nations to recognize Israel. Now we can call it a day.
LOL, OK, its crystal clear you are utterly unable to even begin to defend your ridiculous notion that a vote taken in the 1940s somehow proves anything at all about actions and views now. Feel free to continue to shuck and jive--it still remains obvious you are 100% unable to even start to mount a defense of your silly and unsupportable assertion.

But please, by all means, continue to claim that the 1940s are the same as current events. It does a world of good for your credibility.

South Africa's situation is not unrelated. It has been claimed here that Israel was singled out by the UN, but that is simply not true. The UN suspended South Africa and has imposed sanctions on other countries.
J Early, it is understood that your opinions are worthless and essentially unmoored from reality. That's fine; your repeated off-topic comments that never bother to ever come into contact with the topic have made that clear. But you are now repeatedly inventing your own personal 'facts' to suit your needs.
The issue at hand was Israel's unique situation and standing in the UN. For you then to claim that someone said Israel was 'singled out' is just wrong on the facts and yet another example of you simply ignoring what has been said and making things up out of whole cloth. Do you really think nobody will notice you lying and making things up as you go? Hillarious!

After you explain why it was wrong to assassinate Kahane.
Perfect, the cherry atop the sundae! After posts riddled with missteps and strawmen and attempts to avoid the topics at hand, puntucated with what can only be called dishonesty, you finish up with 'I know you are but what am I?'. That's just ideal. You've been a peach J Early, thank you!
10.21.2007 10:36pm
Southern Gal (mail):

It is not a strawman, little or otherwise. In the period 1972 to 2006, there must have been dozens of nations that had an opportunity to vote "no" in support of one of those 40 US vetoes, but none ever did. You are trying to excuse the inexcusable.


Early, you are committing a fallacy. Just because everybody else voted no does not automatically make the US wrong.

And actually, if the only member of the United Nations not allowed on the Security Council is Israel, that is a much bigger problem than whether or not the US votes yes on sanctions against Israel. This is Exclusion with a Capital E. If it were an Arab nation instead, you bet we would never hear the end of it, especially if Israel were allowed on the council.
10.22.2007 3:10am
Southern Gal (mail):

If those 40 UN Security Council resolutions against Israel that were vetoed by the US were so terrible, then how come none of the other 14 members of the council ever joined the US in opposing them? I have to keep asking the same question over and over again.


Question: if everybody you knew thought it was right and safe to jump out of an airplane at 500 ft without a parachute, would that make it so?

I apologize if the exageration offends you, but it clearly demonstrates the dangers of group think fallacy.
10.22.2007 3:17am
Southern Gal (mail):

Just because everybody else voted no does not automatically make the US wrong.


Correction: just becausee everybody else voted yes.
10.22.2007 3:18am
Southern Gal (mail):

But that doesn't explain why none of the other 14 members of the Security Council ever voted "no" in support of any of the approx. 40 US vetoes of resolutions aimed at Israel in the period 1972-2006.


You never get sick of this one do you? Perhaps the reason nobody is responding to it is because it is incorrect thinking, which makes a rebuttal superfluous. I have this image of lemmings going over a cliff everytime you mention this.
10.22.2007 3:22am
J.Early (mail):
guest1100 said,
But please, by all means, continue to claim that the 1940s are the same as current events.

How is Russia anti-Israel today?

And you still haven't explained why Russia voted for the partition of Palestine and was one of the first nations to recognize Israel.

The issue at hand was Israel's unique situation and standing in the UN. For you then to claim that someone said Israel was 'singled out'

You are contradicting yourself, saying that Israel's situation in the UN has been unique, then saying that Israel has not been singled out at the UN. I have presented examples of countries that the UN has treated much more harshly than Israel — for example, South Africa was excluded from the General Assembly for two decades.

Southern Gal said,
And actually, if the only member of the United Nations not allowed on the Security Council is Israel, that is a much bigger problem than whether or not the US votes yes on sanctions against Israel.

Wrong — Israel is now eligible for the Security Council because Israel joined the "Western European and Others" group at the UN in 2000. Anyway, Israel's ineligibility for SC membership was no excuse for the USA's vetoes. Also, to my knowledge, the UN Security Council has never voted on proposed sanctions against Israel.

But that doesn't explain why none of the other 14 members of the Security Council ever voted "no" in support of any of the approx. 40 US vetoes of resolutions aimed at Israel in the period 1972-2006.
You never get sick of this one do you?


That reminds me of the first Lincoln-Douglas debate, where a member of the audience, tired of Lincoln's harping on the Dred Scott decision, said, "Give us something besides Dred Scott." Lincoln answered, "Yes; no doubt you want to hear something that don't hurt." [Laughter and applause.]

Perhaps the reason nobody is responding to it is because it is incorrect thinking, which makes a rebuttal superfluous.

Yes, I know, only the US and Israel are right about Israel and all the rest of the world is wrong.
10.22.2007 10:10am
guest1100:
How is Russia anti-Israel today?

Wrong answer J Early. Your position has been that Russia's vote in the 1940s was proof that Russia is not overtly pro-Arab currently. Please either defend your utterly undefensible position, or feel free to drop it.

The issue at hand was Israel's unique situation and standing in the UN. For you then to claim that someone said Israel was 'singled out'
You are contradicting yourself, saying that Israel's situation in the UN has been unique, then saying that Israel has not been singled out at the UN.

J Early, I suspect I may owe you an apology. I have accused you of dishonesty, when the reality may that you just are rather dim. Please concentrate for a moment:
1. The point was that Israel's was a unique position in the UN. That is factually correct and you have obviously done nothing to dent that in the least as it is based in fact.
2. You tried to weasel away from your mistake by using your 'singled out' formation. But that fails for a number of reasons. The fact that nobody said that is a bit of an issue for you, don't you think?
3. You are now trying to claim I said Israel has not been singled out at the UN. As I never said that, you are either being dishonest or dim. I would like to know which one?
4. You claim I am contradicting myself because a fact I mentioned earlier you believe somehow is contradicted by some words I never said. You do understand that you aren't really entitled to make up quotes for me out of the ether, don't you? It might make you feel better, but it's still considered bad form.

Wrong — Israel is now eligible for the Security Council because Israel joined the "Western European and Others" group at the UN in 2000.
Excellent! So which of the years Israel has been on the Security Council do you believe were the most successful? which were the least successful?
Also, do you take that to mean Israel has all the same rights and privileges of all other countries?
Lastly, what do you make of the percentage of time and resolutions and action and committees devoted to a liberal democracy the size of New Jersey compared to that spent on all the other countries of the world?
10.22.2007 10:56am
Southern gal (mail):
If they are, then kudos for them, it is no longer an issue. I was just saying that if such were the case, it was a problem, as it would be for any other nation in such a position.

More to the point, you COMPLETELY misunderstood the point I was trying to make with my quotes. I NEVER said that the US or Israel was always right. What I SAID was that you were committing group think fallacy by assuming that because "everybody else does it" that automatically makes it right.

Hence the airplane example and the lemmings.

To put it in simple English, if everybody said that jumping off the highest point of the painted desert were completely safe and you could not die from it, would that make it true?

Obviously, it does not. Neither does everybody else voting to sanction Israel make it right. Note that it does NOT make them wrong, either. I'm not debating that particular point. I am simply pointing out that your argument for the sanctions is that everybody else is doing it. This makes it "incorrect thinking," and should "[make] a rebuttal superfluous." Unfortunately, your inability to grasp this concept has made an explanation mandatory.
10.22.2007 1:02pm
John327:
.....and just how does one arrive at the conclusion that Islamic Arabs are anti-Semitic? They ARE Semitic!!
10.22.2007 1:17pm
Southern gal (mail):

Antisemitism might strictly be used to refer to hatred of or hostility towards any member of the racial group "Semites," but in practice it is only used to refer to hatred of or hostility towards Jews and Judaism.


My source
10.22.2007 1:39pm
Yankev (mail):

Your position has been that Russia's vote in the 1940s was proof that Russia is not overtly pro-Arab currently.

Has anyone bothered to point out that RUSSIA did not vote on anything in the 1940's; the USSR did. Or that from the 1950s on, in order to attract client states in the Arab world, the USSR became a major source for anti-Israel propaganda, the training and financing of anti-Israel terrorists, and the primary arms supplier to the Arab states in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars against Israel?
10.22.2007 2:03pm
Yankev (mail):

You are now trying to claim I said Israel has not been singled out at the UN. As I never said that, you are either being dishonest or dim. I would like to know which one?


Guest, doesn't this question presume that he is smart enough to understand the question and to answer it correctly, and honest enough to answer it truthfully?
10.22.2007 2:06pm
J.Early (mail):
Guest1100 said,
How is Russia anti-Israel today?

Wrong answer J Early.

That's a question, not an answer.

Your position has been that Russia's vote in the 1940s was proof that Russia is not overtly pro-Arab currently.

That was never my position — you are putting words in my mouth. And you still have not answered my above question.

You claim I am contradicting myself because a fact I mentioned earlier you believe somehow is contradicted by some words I never said.

What is the difference here between "unique" and "singled out" ? Nothing.

So which of the years Israel has been on the Security Council do you believe were the most successful?

How dumb can you get? Some countries that have been in the UN for many decades have never had a single two-year term on the Security Council. Others have had only one or just a few terms.

Lastly, what do you make of the percentage of time and resolutions and action and committees devoted to a liberal democracy the size of New Jersey compared to that spent on all the other countries of the world?

The UN would not waste so much time on Israel if the USA stopped bending over backwards to shield Israel.

Southern gal said,
More to the point, you COMPLETELY misunderstood the point I was trying to make with my quotes. I NEVER said that the US or Israel was always right.

As I said, no other UN Security Council member voted "no" to support any of those 40 US vetoes in the period 1972-2006. If it happened a few times, OK, but 40 times without exception? And there was an unbroken string of ten 14-1 votes — with no abstentions — against US vetoes in the period 1988-1997.

I am simply pointing out that your argument for the sanctions is that everybody else is doing it.

So far as I know, the Security Council never voted on whether to impose sanctions on Israel.

Yankev said,
Has anyone bothered to point out that RUSSIA did not vote on anything in the 1940's; the USSR did.

Yes, I pointed it out. But Russia was the dominant member of the USSR. And at the time of the 1947 partition vote, Ukraine and the Byelorussian SSR (Belarus) had their own seats in the General Assembly and also voted for partition.

Or that from the 1950s on, in order to attract client states in the Arab world, the USSR became a major source for anti-Israel propaganda, the training and financing of anti-Israel terrorists, and the primary arms supplier to the Arab states in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars against Israel?

So? In the 1956 Suez Crisis, the US sided with Egypt against Israel, UK and France.
10.22.2007 4:32pm
guest1100:
How is Russia anti-Israel today?

Wrong answer J Early.

That's a question, not an answer.


J Early, kudos for your consistency. You remain, as ever, either dishonest or a dim bulb. You have chosen not to clarify which it is, but it is become more and more obvious that both are playing a part.
Let me help you here--your question was actually your answer. Do you see how that works? Isn't it kind of cool--your answer took the form of a question. And then to make it even better, you act like you don't even realize your own question was your answer! You really are in peak form of late!

Your position has been that Russia's vote in the 1940s was proof that Russia is not overtly pro-Arab currently.

That was never my position — you are putting words in my mouth.

Zing!! Another winner from J Early, and let's see why.

First, you claim that it was not your position that Russia was currently pro-Arab. But is that true? Let's hop in the time machine and see. This is what you said in response to the "one-sidesness of Russian support for Arabs":

In the UN General Assembly in 1947, Russia (then USSR) voted in favor of the partition of Palestine. This partition created Israel.

So yes, obviously you tried to use their UN vote in the 1940s to argue against "one-sidesness of Russian support for Arabs". You also tried to use Russian membership in the 'Quartet' as added ammo.
So, this is clearly and obviously either yet more mendacity from you, or top-notch idiocy. I am prepared to accept either explanation.

But you are not content to stop there are you? Nope, not our J Early. Why stop when there is still time to lie some more? You claim, and I quote, that I am 'putting words' in your mouth. But your own words put the lie to that, do they not? Please, feel free to go back and look at exactly what has been quoted of your own words, and let me know which ones I have placed inot your dishonest mouth.

But wait, our man J Early is just getting warmed up!

You claim I am contradicting myself because a fact I mentioned earlier you believe somehow is contradicted by some words I never said.

What is the difference here between "unique" and "singled out" ? Nothing.


Au contraire my moronic and dishonest friend. Please go back and look at the flow of what you have done. But first, let's take a look at the word 'unique': existing as the only one or as the sole example. OK so far J Early? Take a break, or carry on?

Now, please remember that it was stated Israel's position in the UN had been 'unique'? That statement has not been credibly undercut (and how could it--it was a simple declaration of fact). But then you trotted out your silly example of another country (South Africa) that was not at all in the same situation. So your counter failed utterly, but then you tried to use your failed example as a way to make it seem that Israel was not in a unique situation when the facts were against you. But now you have decided to double down on your busted straight by claiming that 'hey, what's the difference between unique and singled out'?
Please try and concentrate on the definition of 'unique'. Then compare and contrast that with your failed attempt to make it seem like there were others who have been 'singled out' by the UN just as Israel had been. Do you see it now J Early, that not only have you been trying to create your own facts, but now you are trying to rewrite the actual definitions of what words mean! Brilliant!!

So again, I really need to know--are you trying to be upfront and honest, and you just lack the mental horse power? Or something more sinister?

Some countries that have been in the UN for many decades have never had a single two-year term on the Security Council. Others have had only one or just a few terms.
Did all those countries spend decades waiting as the ONLY country technically not permitted to even have that chance?
Did all those countries have the UN spend such a disproportionate amount of its time and resources devoted strictly to them?
Coincidence, right J Early?
Also, pity no Arab countries have ever been on the Security Council either. Eh, what's that you say?
10.22.2007 5:09pm