No, it's not anti-semitic

Politics > Politics-USA > No, it's not anti-semitic

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Politics > Politics-USA
User:	"tokugawa"
Date:	29 Aug 2003 08:24:19 PM
Object:	No, it's not anti-semitic

No, it's not anti-semitic
Judith Butler
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n16/butl02_.html
"Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in
progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people
are advocating and taking actions that are anti-semitic in their
effect if not their intent."
-Lawrence Summers, 17 September 2002
When the president of Harvard University declared that to criticise
Israel at this time and to call on universities to divest from Israel
are 'actions that are anti-semitic in their effect, if not their
intent', he introduced a distinction between effective and intentional
anti-semitism that is controversial at best. The counter-charge has
been that in making his statement, Summers has struck a blow against
academic freedom, in effect, if not in intent. Although he insisted
that he meant nothing censorious by his remarks, and that he is in
favour of Israeli policy being 'debated freely and civilly', his words
have had a chilling effect on political discourse. Among those actions
which he called 'effectively anti-semitic' were European boycotts of
Israel, anti-globalisation rallies at which criticisms of Israel were
voiced, and fund-raising efforts for organisations of 'questionable
political provenance'. Of local concern to him, however, was a
divestment petition drafted by MIT and Harvard faculty members who
oppose Israel's current occupation and its treatment of Palestinians.
Summers asked why Israel was being 'singled out . . . among all
nations' for a divestment campaign, suggesting that the singling out
was evidence of anti-semitic intentions. And though he claimed that
aspects of Israel's 'foreign and defence' policy 'can be and should be
vigorously challenged', it was unclear how such challenges could or
would take place without being construed as anti-Israel, and why these
policy issues, which include occupation, ought not to be vigorously
challenged through a divestment campaign. It would seem that calling
for divestment is something other than a legitimately 'vigorous
challenge', but we are not given any criteria by which to adjudicate
between vigorous challenges that should be articulated, and those
which carry the 'effective' force of anti-semitism.
Summers is right to voice concern about rising anti-semitism, and
every progressive person ought to challenge anti-semitism vigorously
wherever it occurs. It seems, though, that historically we have now
reached a position in which Jews cannot legitimately be understood
always and only as presumptive victims. Sometimes we surely are, but
sometimes we surely are not. No political ethics can start from the
assumption that Jews monopolise the position of victim. 'Victim' is a
quickly transposable term: it can shift from minute to minute, from
the Jew killed by suicide bombers on a bus to the Palestinian child
killed by Israeli gunfire. The public sphere needs to be one in which
both kinds of violence are challenged insistently and in the name of
justice.
If we think that to criticise Israeli violence, or to call for
economic pressure to be put on the Israeli state to change its
policies, is to be 'effectively anti-semitic', we will fail to voice
our opposition for fear of being named as part of an anti-semitic
enterprise. No label could be worse for a Jew, who knows that,
ethically and politically, the position with which it would be
unbearable to identify is that of the anti-semite. The ethical
framework within which most progressive Jews operate takes the form of
the following question: will we be silent (and thereby collaborate
with illegitimately violent power), or will we make our voices heard
(and be counted among those who did what they could to stop that
violence), even if speaking poses a risk? The current Jewish critique
of Israel is often portrayed as insensitive to Jewish suffering, past
as well as present, yet its ethic is based on the experience of
suffering, in order that suffering might stop.
Summers uses the 'anti-semitic' charge to quell public criticism of
Israel, even as he explicitly distances himself from the overt
operations of censorship. He writes, for instance, that 'the only
antidote to dangerous ideas is strong alternatives vigorously
advocated.' But how does one vigorously advocate the idea that the
Israeli occupation is brutal and wrong, and Palestinian
self-determination a necessary good, if the voicing of those views
calls down the charge of anti-semitism?
To understand Summers's claim, we have to be able to conceive of an
effective anti-semitism, one that pertains to certain speech acts.
Either it follows on certain utterances, or it structures them, even
if that is not the conscious intention of those making them. His view
assumes that such utterances will be taken by others as anti-semitic,
or received within a given context as anti-semitic. So we have to ask
what context Summers has in mind when he makes his claim; in what
context is it the case that any criticism of Israel will be taken to
be anti-semitic?
It may be that what Summers was effectively saying is that the only
way a criticism of Israel can be heard is through a certain acoustic
frame, such that the criticism, whether it is of the West Bank
settlements, the closing of Birzeit and Bethlehem University, the
demolition of homes in Ramallah or Jenin, or the killing of numerous
children and civilians, can only be interpreted as showing hatred for
Jews. We are asked to conjure a listener who attributes an intention
to the speaker: so-and-so has made a public statement against the
Israeli occupation, and this must mean that so-and-so hates Jews or is
willing to fuel those who do. The criticism is thus given a hidden
meaning, one that is at odds with its explicit claim. The criticism of
Israel is nothing more than a cloak for that hatred, or a cover for a
call for discriminatory action against Jews. In other words, the only
way to understand effective anti-semitism is to presuppose intentional
anti-semitism; the effective anti-semitism of any criticism turns out
to reside in the intention of the speaker as retrospectively
attributed by the listener.
It may be that Summers has something else in mind; namely, that the
criticism will be exploited by those who want to see not only the
destruction of Israel but the degradation or devaluation of Jewish
people in general. There is always that risk, but to claim that such
criticism of Israel can be taken only as criticism of Jews is to
attribute to that particular interpretation the power to monopolise
the field of reception. The argument against letting criticism of
Israel into the public sphere would be that it gives fodder to those
with anti-semitic intentions, who will successfully co-opt the
criticism. Here again, a statement can become effectively anti-semitic
only if there is, somewhere, an intention to use it for anti-semitic
purposes. Indeed, even if one believed that criticisms of Israel are
by and large heard as anti-semitic (by Jews, anti-semites, or people
who could be described as neither), it would become the responsibility
of all of us to change the conditions of reception so that the public
might begin to distinguish between criticism of Israel and a hatred of
Jews.
Summers made his statement as president of an institution which is a
symbol of academic prestige in the United States, and although he
claimed he was speaking not as president of the university but as a
'member of our community', his speech carried weight in the press
precisely because he was exercising the authority of his office. If
the president of Harvard is letting the public know that he will take
any criticism of Israel to be effectively anti-semitic, then he is
saying that public discourse itself ought to be so constrained that
such statements are not uttered, and that those who utter them will be
understood as engaging in anti-semitic speech, even hate speech.
Here, it is important to distinguish between anti-semitic speech
which, say, produces a hostile and threatening environment for Jewish
students - racist speech which any university administrator would be
obliged to oppose and regulate - and speech which makes a student
uncomfortable because it opposes a particular state or set of state
policies that he or she may defend. The latter is a political debate,
and if we say that the case of Israel is different, that any criticism
of it is considered as an attack on Israelis, or Jews in general, then
we have singled out this political allegiance from all other
allegiances that are open to public debate. We have engaged in the
most outrageous form of 'effective' censorship.
The point is not only that Summers's distinction between effective and
intentional anti-semitism cannot hold, but that the way it collapses
in his formulation is precisely what produces the conditions under
which certain public views are taken to be hate speech, in effect if
not in intent. Summers didn't say that anything that Israel does in
the name of self-defence is legitimate and ought not to be questioned.
I don't know whether he approves of all Israeli policies, but let's
imagine, for the sake of argument, that he doesn't. And I don't know
whether he has views about, for instance, the destruction of homes and
the killings of children in Jenin which attracted the attention of the
United Nations last year but was not investigated as a human rights
violation because Israel refused to open its borders to an
investigative team. If he objects to those actions, and they are among
the 'foreign policy' issues he believes ought to be 'vigorously
challenged', he would be compelled, under his formulation, not to
voice his disapproval, believing, as he does, that that would be
construed, effectively, as anti-semitism. And if he thinks it possible
to voice disapproval, he hasn't shown us how to do it in such a way as
to avert the allegation of anti-semitism.
Summers's logic suggests that certain actions of the Israeli state
must be allowed to go on unimpeded by public protest, for fear that
any protest would be tantamount to anti-semitism, if not anti-semitism
itself. Now, all forms of anti-semitism must be opposed, but we have
here a set of serious confusions about the forms anti-semitism takes.
Indeed, if the charge of anti-semitism is used to defend Israel at all
costs, then its power when used against those who do discriminate
against Jews - who do violence to synagogues in Europe, wave Nazi
flags or support anti-semitic organisations - is radically diluted.
Many critics of Israel now dismiss all claims of anti-semitism as
'trumped up', having been exposed to their use as a way of censoring
political speech.
Summers doesn't tell us why divestment campaigns or other forms of
public protest are anti-semitic. According to him, some forms of
anti-semitism are characterised as such retroactively, which means
that nothing should be said or done that will then be taken to be
anti-semitic by others. But what if those others are wrong? If we take
one form of anti-semitism to be defined retroactively, what is left of
the possibility of legitimate protest against a state, either by its
own population or anyone else? If we say that every time the word
'Israel' is spoken, the speaker really means 'Jews', then we have
foreclosed in advance the possibility that the speaker really means
'Israel'. If, on the other hand, we distinguish between anti-semitism
and forms of protest against the Israeli state (or right-wing settlers
who sometimes act independently of the state), acknowledging that
sometimes they do, disturbingly, work together, then we stand a chance
of understanding that world Jewry does not see itself as one with
Israel in its present form and practice, and that Jews in Israel do
not necessarily see themselves as one with the state. In other words,
the possibility of a substantive Jewish peace movement depends on our
observing a productive and critical distance from the state of Israel
(which can be coupled with a profound investment in its future
course).
Summers's view seems to imply that criticism of Israel is
'anti-Israel' in the sense that it is understood to challenge the
right of Israel to exist. A criticism of Israel is not the same,
however, as a challenge to Israel's existence, even if there are
conditions under which it would be possible to say that one leads to
the other. A challenge to the right of Israel to exist can be
construed as a challenge to the existence of the Jewish people only if
one believes that Israel alone keeps the Jewish people alive or that
all Jews invest their sense of perpetuity in the state of Israel in
its current or traditional forms. One could argue, however, that those
polities which safeguard the right to criticise them stand a better
chance of surviving than those that don't. For a criticism of Israel
to be taken as a challenge to the survival of the Jews, we would have
to assume not only that 'Israel' cannot change in response to
legitimate criticism, but that a more radically democratic Israel
would be bad for Jews. This would be to suppose that criticism is not
a Jewish value, which clearly flies in the face not only of long
traditions of Talmudic disputation, but of all the religious and
cultural sources that have been part of Jewish life for centuries.
What are we to make of Jews who disidentify with Israel or, at least,
with the Israeli state? Or Jews who identify with Israel, but do not
condone some of its practices? There is a wide range here: those who
are silently ambivalent about the way Israel handles itself; those who
only half articulate their doubts about the occupation; those who are
strongly opposed to the occupation, but within a Zionist framework;
those who would like to see Zionism rethought or, indeed, abandoned.
Jews may hold any of these opinions, but voice them only to their
family, or only to their friends; or voice them in public but then
face an angry reception at home. Given this Jewish ambivalence, ought
we not to be suspicious of any effort to equate Jews with Israel? The
argument that all Jews have a heartfelt investment in the state of
Israel is untrue. Some have a heartfelt investment in corned beef
sandwiches or in certain Talmudic tales, religious rituals and
liturgy, in memories of their grandmother, the taste of borscht or the
sounds of the old Yiddish theatre. Others have an investment in
historical and cultural archives from Eastern Europe or from the
Holocaust, or in forms of labour activism, civil rights struggles and
social justice that are thoroughly secular, and exist in relative
independence from the question of Israel.
What do we make of Jews such as myself, who are emotionally invested
in the state of Israel, critical of its current form, and call for a
radical restructuring of its economic and juridical basis precisely
because we are invested in it? It is always possible to say that such
Jews have turned against their own Jewishness. But what if one
criticises Israel in the name of one's Jewishness, in the name of
justice, precisely because such criticisms seem 'best for the Jews'?
Why wouldn't it always be 'best for the Jews' to embrace forms of
democracy that extend what is 'best' to everyone, Jewish or not? I
signed a petition framed in these terms, an 'Open Letter from American
Jews', in which 3700 American Jews opposed the Israeli occupation,
though in my view it was not nearly strong enough: it did not call for
the end of Zionism, or for the reallocation of arable land, for
rethinking the Jewish right of return or for the fair distribution of
water and medicine to Palestinians, and it did not call for the
reorganisation of the Israeli state on a more radically egalitarian
basis. It was, nevertheless, an overt criticism of Israel.
Many of those who signed that petition will have felt what might
reasonably be called heartache at taking a public stand against
Israeli policy, at the thought that Israel, by subjecting 3.5 million
Palestinians to military occupation, represents the Jews in a way that
these petitioners find not only objectionable, but terrible to endure,
as Jews; it is as Jews that they assert their disidentification with
that policy, that they seek to widen the rift between the state of
Israel and the Jewish people in order to produce an alternative vision
of the future. The petitioners exercised a democratic right to voice
criticism, and sought to get economic pressure put on Israel by the US
and other countries, to implement rights for Palestinians otherwise
deprived of basic conditions of self-determination, to end the
occupation, to secure an independent Palestinian state or to
re-establish the basis of the Israeli state without regard to religion
so that Jewishness would constitute only one cultural and religious
reality, and be protected by the same laws that protect the rights of
others.
Identifying Israel with Jewry obscures the existence of the small but
important post-Zionist movement in Israel, including the philosophers
Adi Ophir and Anat Biletzki, the sociologist Uri Ram, the professor of
theatre Avraham Oz and the poet Yitzhak Laor. Are we to say that
Israelis who are critical of Israeli policy are self-hating Jews, or
insensitive to the ways in which criticism may fan the flames of
anti-semitism? What of the new Brit Tzedek organisation in the US,
numbering close to 20,000 members at the last count, which seeks to
offer a critical alternative to the American Israel Political Action
Committee, opposing the current occupation and working for a two-state
solution? What of Jewish Voices for Peace, Jews against the
Occupation, Jews for Peace in the Middle East, the Faculty for
Israeli-Palestinian Peace, Tikkun, Jews for Racial and Economic
Justice, Women in Black or, indeed, Neve Shalom-Wahat al-Salam, the
only village collectively governed by both Jews and Arabs in the state
of Israel? What do we make of B'Tselem, the Israeli organisation that
monitors human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza, or Gush
Shalom, an Israeli organisation opposing the occupation, or Yesh Gvul,
which represents the Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the
Occupied Territories? And what of Ta'ayush, a Jewish-Arab coalition
against policies that lead to isolation, poor medical care, house
arrest, the destruction of educational institutions, and lack of water
and food for Palestinians?
It will not do to equate Jews with Zionists or Jewishness with
Zionism. There were debates among Jews throughout the 19th and early
20th centuries as to whether Zionism ought to become the basis of a
state, whether the Jews had any right to lay claim to land inhabited
by Palestinians for centuries, and as to the future for a Jewish
political project based on a violent expropriation of land. There were
those who sought to make Zionism compatible with peaceful co-existence
with Arabs, and those who used it as an excuse for military
aggression, and continue to do so. There were those who thought, and
still think, that Zionism is not a legitimate basis for a democratic
state in a situation where a diverse population must be assumed to
practise different religions, and that no group ought to be excluded
from any right accorded to citizens in general on the basis of their
ethnic or religious views. And there are those who maintain that the
violent appropriation of Palestinian land, and the dislocation of
700,000 Palestinians, was an unsuitable foundation on which to build a
state. Yet Israel is now repeating its founding gesture in the
containment and dehumanisation of Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories. Indeed, the wall now being built threatens to leave
95,000 Palestinians homeless. These are questions about Zionism that
should and must be asked in a public domain, and universities are
surely one place where we might expect critical reflections on Zionism
to take place. Instead, we are being asked, by Summers and others, to
treat any critical approach to Zionism as effective anti-semitism and,
hence, to rule it out as a topic for legitimate disagreement.
Many important distinctions are elided by the mainstream press when it
assumes that there are only two possible positions on the Middle East,
the 'pro-Israel' and the 'pro-Palestinian'. The assumption is that
these are discrete views, internally homogeneous, non-overlapping,
that if one is 'pro-Israel' then anything Israel does is all right, or
if 'pro-Palestinian' then anything Palestinians do is all right. But
few people's political views occupy such extremes. One can, for
instance, be in favour of Palestinian self-determination, but condemn
suicide bombings, and find others who share both those views but
differ on the form self-determination ought to take. One can be in
favour of Israel's right to exist, but still ask what is the most
legitimate and democratic form that existence ought to take. If one
questions the present form, is one anti-Israel? If one holds out for a
truly democratic Israel-Palestine, is one anti-Israel? Or is one
trying to find a better form for this polity, one that may well
involve any number of possibilities: a revised version of Zionism, a
post-Zionist Israel, a self-determining Palestine, or an amalgamation
of Israel into a greater Israel-Palestine where all racially and
religiously based qualifications on rights and entitlements would be
eliminated?
What is ironic is that in equating Zionism with Jewishness, Summers is
adopting the very tactic favoured by anti-semites. At the time of his
speech, I found myself on a listserv on which a number of individuals
opposed to the current policies of the state of Israel, and sometimes
to Zionism, started to engage in this same slippage, sometimes
opposing what they called 'Zionism' and at other times what they
called 'Jewish' interests. Whenever this occurred, there were
objections, and several people withdrew from the group. Mona Baker,
the academic in Manchester who dismissed two Israeli colleagues from
the board of her academic journal in an effort to boycott Israeli
institutions, argued that there was no way to distinguish between
individuals and institutions. In dismissing these individuals, she
claimed, she was treating them as emblematic of the Israeli state,
since they were citizens of that country. But citizens are not the
same as states: the very possibility of significant dissent depends on
recognising the difference between them. Baker's response to
subsequent criticism was to submit e-mails to the
'academicsforjustice' listserv complaining about 'Jewish' newspapers
and labelling as 'pressure' the opportunity that some of these
newspapers offered to discuss the issue in print with the colleagues
she had dismissed. She refused to do this and seemed now to be
fighting against 'Jews', identified as a lobby that pressures people,
a lobby that had put pressure on her. The criticism that I made of
Summers's view thus applies to Baker as well: it is one thing to
oppose Israel in its current form and practices or, indeed, to have
critical questions about Zionism itself, but it is quite another to
oppose 'Jews' or assume that all 'Jews' have the same view, that they
are all in favour of Israel, identified with Israel or represented by
Israel. Oddly, and painfully, it has to be said that on this point
Mona Baker and Lawrence Summers agree: Jews are the same as Israel. In
the one instance, the premise works in the service of an argument
against anti-semitism; in the second, it works as the effect of
anti-semitism itself. One aspect of anti-semitism or, indeed, of any
form of racism is that an entire people is falsely and summarily
equated with a particular position, view or disposition. To say that
all Jews hold a given view on Israel or are adequately represented by
Israel or, conversely, that the acts of Israel, the state, adequately
stand for the acts of all Jews, is to conflate Jews with Israel and,
thereby, to commit an anti-semitic reduction of Jewishness.
In holding out for a distinction to be made between Israel and Jews, I
am calling for a space for dissent for Jews, and non-Jews, who have
criticisms of Israel to articulate; but I am also opposing
anti-semitic reductions of Jewishness to Israeli interests. The 'Jew'
is no more defined by Israel than by anti-semitism. The 'Jew' exceeds
both determinations, and is to be found, substantively, as a
historically and culturally changing identity that takes no single
form and has no single telos. Once the distinction is made, discussion
of both Zionism and anti-semitism can begin, since it will be as
important to understand the legacy of Zionism and to debate its future
as to oppose anti-semitism wherever we find it.
What is needed is a public space in which such issues might be
thoughtfully debated, and to prevent that space being defined by
certain kinds of exclusion and censorship. If one can't voice an
objection to violence done by Israel without attracting a charge of
anti-semitism, then that charge works to circumscribe the publicly
acceptable domain of speech, and to immunise Israeli violence against
criticism. One is threatened with the label 'anti-semitic' in the same
way that one is threatened with being called a 'traitor' if one
opposes the most recent US war. Such threats aim to define the limits
of the public sphere by setting limits on the speakable. The world of
public discourse would then be one from which critical perspectives
would be excluded, and the public would come to understand itself as
one that does not speak out in the face of obvious and illegitimate
violence.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	30 Aug 2003 09:25:57 AM

On 29 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700,

(tokugawa)
wrote:

and
the killings of children in Jenin which attracted the attention of the
United Nations last year but was not investigated as a human rights
violation because Israel refused to open its borders to an
investigative team.

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.
Nothing whatsoever.
.

User: "tokugawa"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	30 Aug 2003 04:54:01 PM

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote :

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

If Israel had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the
investigators? An impartial observer would tend to conclude that
Israel did have something to hide. Particularly absurd was the Israeli
demand to have veto power over who the investigators were. In what
judicial proceeding is the defendant allowed to choose the judges and
the prosecutors? It's like Milosevic having veto power over who
investigates the Serbian atrocities.
What you refer to as "fables" are merely inconvenient historical facts
which you wish forgotten:
1) Then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was the first person to refer to
a massacre at Jenin, according to the Israeli press, and
2) the IDF reported that the dead were being removed from Jenin and
buried in unmarked graves in the Jordan valley, again, according to
the Israeli press.
Below is a brief description of some of the major massacres conducted
by Zionists before and after the founding of the state of Israel
(1947-1953), several of which include the murder of children:
YEHIDA MASSACRE: 13 December 1947: men of the Arab village of Yehiday
(near Petah Tekva, the first Zionist settlement to be established) met
at the local coffee house when they saw what looked to be four British
Army patrols entering the village. They were not suspicious as they
were reassured by the British of safety; especially that Jewish
terrorists had murdered 12 Palestinians the previous day. The four
cars stopped in front of the cafe house and out stepped men dressed in
khaki uniforms and steel helmets. However, it soon became apparent
that they did not come to protect the villagers. With machine guns
they sprayed bullets into the crowd gathered in the coffee house. Some
of the attackers placed bombs next to Palestinian homes while other
disguised terrorists tossed grenades at civilians here and there. For
a while it seemed as if the villagers would been annihilated. But soon
a real British patrol arrived to foil the well organized killing raid.
The death toll of 7 Palestinian civilians could have been much higher.
Earlier the same day 6 Palestinians were killed and 23 wounded when
home made bombs were tossed at a crowd of Palestinians standing near
the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem. In Jaffa another bomb killed six more
Arabs and injured over 40.
KHISAS MASSACRE: 18 December 1947: Two carloads of Haganah members
drove through the village of Khisas (on the Lebanese Syrian border)
firing machine guns and throwing grenades. 10 Palestinian civilians
were killed in the raid.
QAZAZA MASSACRE: 19 December 1947: Five Palestinian children were
murdered in cold blood when Jewish terrorists blew up the house of the
village Mukhtar (Alderman).
AL-SHEIKH VILLAGE MASSACRE: 1 January 1948: On that night, around two
hundred Zionists armed with hand grenades and machine guns sneaked
into this small village (5km South East of Haifa). The attackers came
through the southern hills. They attacked the houses on the edges of
the village with hand grenades and finished off with machine guns,
killing over 40 Palestinians.
DEIR YASSIN MASSACRE: 9 April 1948: The Mukhtar (Alderman) of the
village had agreed with the Zionists to provide information on the
movement of strangers in the area as well as other intelligence
provided their village is spared. The Zionists did not to keep their
promise. In an operation which was called Operation Unity, the Haganah
cooperated with the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Starting at 4:30 am on
Friday 9th April 1948 and continuing for two days, Zionist terrorists
killed men, women and children, raped women and stole their jewelry. A
chilling account of the massacre is given by a Red Cross doctor who
arrived at the village on the second day and saw for himself the
'mopping up' as one of the terrorists put it to him. He says that the
mopping up had been done with machine guns, then grenades and finished
off with knives. The original death toll of 254 announced by Irgun was
later proved to be an exaggeration, the goal being to more effectively
terrorize Palestinians. Recent historians put the death toll at 110.
Photographs taken at the scene and a written report by an officer of
Haganah have never been released and remain classified in the Israeli
archives. This April marked the 55th year of the Israeli cover-up
of the most notorious Israeli massacre. Deir Yassin was a major
reason the military forces of many Arab states went to Palestine:
Israelis were killing innocent Palestinian civilians in large numbers
and ethnicly cleansing Palestinian civilians from their homes at
gunpoint. After 55 years, not only are the refugees prevented from
returning to their homes, but they have never received any
compensation for the theft of their land, their homes, their
businesses, or their property. Until this issue is settled with
justice, peace in the Mideast is impossible. Ignoring this issue will
not make it go away. [The alleged 'generous offer' at Camp David would
not have allowed the refugees to return to their homes in what is now
Israel and left it to "other countries" to compensate the refugees
(even though no country has yet to volunteer to do this). In other
words, Israel would have suffered no punishment for the crimes
(genocide, ethnic cleansing) of 1948.]
NASER AL-DIN MASSACRE: 13-14 April 1948, a contingent of Lehi and
Irgun entered this village (near Tiberias) on the night of 13 April
dressed as Palestinian fighters. Upon their entrance to the village
the people went out to greet them, the terrorists met them with fire,
killing them. Only 40 people survived. All the houses of the village
were raised to the ground.
BEIT DARAS MASSACRE: 21 May 1948, after a number of failed attempts to
occupy this village, the Zionists mobilized a large contingent and
surrounded the village. The people of Beit Daras decided that women
and children should leave. As women and children left the village they
were ambushed by the Zionist army, who massacred them.
THE DAHMASH MOSQUE MASSACRE: 11 July 1948, after the Israeli 89th
Commando Battalion lead by Moshe Dayan occupied Lydda (now Lod), the
Israelis told Arabs through loudspeakers that if they went into a
certain mosque they would be safe. Over one hundred Palestinians were
massacred in the mosque, their bodies lay decomposing for 10 days in
the mid-summer heat. The mosque still stands abandoned today. This
massacre spread fear and panic among the Palestinian population of
Lydda and Ramle, who were then ordered to march out of these towns
after they were stripped of all personal belongings by IDF soldiers.
Yitzhak Rabin, Brigade Commander for the operation, later said, "There
was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order
to make the inhabitants march ten to fifteen miles to the point where
they met up with the legion." [This the textbook definition of ethnic
cleansing.] Most of the 60,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle came
to refugee camps near Ramallah. Around 350 lost their lives on
the way through dehydration and sun strokes.
DAWAYMA MASSACRE: 29 October 1948, the following is the testimony of a
soldier who participated in the occupation of the village of Dawayma
(in the Haifa sub district): "They killed between 80 to 100 Arab men,
women, and children. To kill children they fractured their heads with
clubs. There was not one home left without corpses .... One commander
ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to
blow up... Another soldier prided himself on having raped an Arab
women before shooting her to death...." The massacre was perpetrated
by the 89th Battalion, veterans of the Lydda massacre.
SHARAFAT MASSACRE: 7 February 1951, Zionist soldiers crossed the
armistice line to this village (3 Miles from Jerusalem) and blew up
the houses of the Mukhtar (Alderman) and his neighbors. Ten
Palestinians were killed (2 men, 3 women and 5 children) and 8 were
wounded.
QIBYA MASSACRE: 14 October 1953, 9:30 PM, about 700 Israeli troops
under the command of Ariel Sharon attacked the border Jordanian
village of Kibya, northwest of Jerusalem. Using mortars, machine guns,
rifles and explosives they blew up 42 houses, the local schools and
the mosque. The death toll of 75 included women and children. Nobody
from Qibya had had anything to do with an earlier killing of two
Israelis. Ben Gurion had tried to say that the act was carried out by
refugees from Nazism living on the border with Jordan and had no
Israeli army involvement but that is now known, of course, to be a
lie. The actual details were so gruesome that the U.S. joined in a
U.N. condemnation of the Israeli action, and for the first and only
time, suspended aid to Israel in reprisal.
.

User: "tokugawa"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	02 Sep 2003 08:28:21 AM

(BTov) wrote:

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote :

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

If Israel had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the
investigators? An impartial observer would tend to conclude that
Israel did have something to hide.

yea..yea..one impartial liar larsen puked there was a massacre [you
love massacres don't you?] without any commission & before any
commission..lol

You do not deny that if Israel had nothing to hide, then there was no
reason to obstruct an investigation.
The following was deleted by BTov from my previous post:
1) Then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was the FIRST PERSON to refer to
a massacre at Jenin, according to the Israeli press, and
2) the IDF reported that the dead were being removed from Jenin and
buried in unmarked graves in the Jordan valley, again, according to
the Israeli press.
BTov seems to think that he can erase history as easily as he deletes
inconvenient facts from usenet posts.
.

User: "BTov"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	02 Sep 2003 03:31:12 PM

(tokugawa) wrote in message news:<fb0ae2f1.0309020528.68d541ea@posting.google.com>...

dkastor6@hotmail.com (BTov) wrote:

(tokugawa) wrote:

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote :

(tokugawa) wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

If Israel had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the
investigators? An impartial observer would tend to conclude that
Israel did have something to hide.

yea..yea..one impartial liar larsen puked there was a massacre [you
love massacres don't you?] without any commission & before any
commission..lol

You do not deny that if Israel had nothing to hide, then there was no
reason to obstruct an investigation.

of course israel had nothing to hide
& commissions should be sent to arab countries ;L

The following was deleted by BTov from my previous post:

i'm a member of the movement for the greener web..stop pollution of
the web!..conserve the bandwidth!..& what i deleted is clearly garbage
polluting the web ;L
& i'll delete it now too..living a useful link from the gardian to
enlighten you on your jenin massacre jokes:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,710532,00.html

BTov seems to think that he can erase history as easily as he deletes
inconvenient facts from usenet posts.

i don't erase history..god forbid!.arab lies about jenin should be
properly documented for psychiatric analysis in the future..
=================
stop pollution! write in binary!
;L
.

User: "tokugawa"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	04 Sep 2003 01:22:01 AM

(BTov) wrote:

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

(BTov) wrote:

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote :

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

If Israel had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the
investigators? An impartial observer would tend to conclude that
Israel did have something to hide.

yea..yea..one impartial liar larsen puked there was a massacre [you
love massacres don't you?] without any commission & before any
commission..lol

You do not deny that if Israel had nothing to hide, then there was no
reason to obstruct an investigation.

of course israel had nothing to hide
& commissions should be sent to arab countries ;L

You are illogical.

The following was deleted by BTov from my previous post:

1) Then Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was the FIRST PERSON to refer to
a massacre at Jenin, according to the Israeli press, and
2) the IDF reported that the dead were being removed from Jenin and
buried in unmarked graves in the Jordan valley, again, according to
the Israeli press.

i'm a member of the movement for the greener web..stop pollution of
the web!

I agree. Stop posting your ad hominem attacks and your illogical
gibberish.
...conserve the bandwidth!..& what i deleted is clearly garbage

polluting the web ;L

Translation: I will delete truthful statements which I cannot refute.

& i'll delete it now too..living a useful link from the gardian to
enlighten you on your jenin massacre jokes:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,710532,00.html

This hardly justifies blocking the U.N. investigation into the
genocide at Jenin.

BTov seems to think that he can erase history as easily as he deletes
inconvenient facts from usenet posts.

i don't erase history..god forbid!.arab lies about jenin should be
properly documented for psychiatric analysis in the future..
=================
stop pollution! write in binary!
;L

Here is some more detail about Jenin from the Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz which BTov will probably delete if he responds to this post:
Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a 'massacre'
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=150051
By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondents

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres Peres is very worried about the expected
international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the
tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100
Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces. In
private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre."
IDF officers also expressed grave reservations Monday over the
operation in Jenin. "Because of the dangers," they said, "the soldiers
are almost not advancing on foot. The bulldozers are simply 'shaving'
the homes and causing terrible destruction. When the world sees the
pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage."
.

User: "BTov"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	04 Sep 2003 07:11:23 AM

(tokugawa) wrote in message news:<fb0ae2f1.0309032222.6fbbaf47@posting.google.com>...

dkastor6@hotmail.com (BTov) wrote:

(tokugawa) wrote:

dkastor6@hotmail.com (BTov) wrote:

(tokugawa) wrote:

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote :

(tokugawa) wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

If Israel had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the
investigators? An impartial observer would tend to conclude that
Israel did have something to hide.

yea..yea..one impartial liar larsen puked there was a massacre [you
love massacres don't you?] without any commission & before any
commission..lol

You do not deny that if Israel had nothing to hide, then there was no
reason to obstruct an investigation.

of course israel had nothing to hide
& commissions should be sent to arab countries ;L

You are illogical.

very logical

The following was deleted by BTov from my previous post:

i'm a member of the movement for the greener web..stop pollution of
the web!

I agree. Stop posting your ad hominem attacks and your illogical
gibberish.

...conserve the bandwidth!..& what i deleted is clearly garbage
polluting the web ;L

Translation: I will delete truthful statements which I cannot refute.

& i'll delete it now too..living a useful link from the gardian to
enlighten you on your jenin massacre jokes:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,710532,00.html

This hardly justifies blocking the U.N. investigation into the
genocide at Jenin.

the guardian's clear on genocide charges--none of it..
you see you make 1001 arab fairy ***** jokes again..& i enjoy
laughing at them ;L

BTov seems to think that he can erase history as easily as he deletes
inconvenient facts from usenet posts.

i don't erase history..god forbid!.arab lies about jenin should be
properly documented for psychiatric analysis in the future..
stop pollution! write in binary!
;L

Here is some more detail about Jenin from the Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz which BTov will probably delete if he responds to this post:

Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a 'massacre'
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=150051
By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondents
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres Peres is very worried about the expected
international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the
tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100
Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces. In
private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre."

as the guardian points out when idiot peres understood that he was
talking his typical ***** he began retracting
peres's an old ***** ;L
give me more dear yasir jokes from 1001 arab fairy *****

IDF officers also expressed grave reservations Monday over the
operation in Jenin. "Because of the dangers," they said, "the soldiers
are almost not advancing on foot. The bulldozers are simply 'shaving'
the homes and causing terrible destruction. When the world sees the
pictures of what we have done there, it will do us immense damage."

good use of the bulldozers tho LOL
.

User: "tokugawa"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	05 Sep 2003 11:57:11 AM

(BTov) wrote:

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

(BTov) wrote:

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

(BTov) wrote:

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote :

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

If Israel had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the
investigators? An impartial observer would tend to conclude that
Israel did have something to hide.

yea..yea..one impartial liar larsen puked there was a massacre [you
love massacres don't you?] without any commission & before any
commission..lol

You do not deny that if Israel had nothing to hide, then there was no
reason to obstruct an investigation.

of course israel had nothing to hide
& commissions should be sent to arab countries ;L

You are illogical.

very logical

Did you major in logic at school, or are you self-taught?

The following was deleted by BTov from my previous post:

i'm a member of the movement for the greener web..stop pollution of
the web!

I agree. Stop posting your ad hominem attacks and your illogical
gibberish.

..conserve the bandwidth!..& what i deleted is clearly garbage
polluting the web ;L

Translation: I will delete truthful statements which I cannot refute.

& i'll delete it now too..living a useful link from the gardian to
enlighten you on your jenin massacre jokes:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,710532,00.html

This hardly justifies blocking the U.N. investigation into the
genocide at Jenin.

the guardian's clear on genocide charges--none of it..

There were no Guardian reporters at Jenin, so they cannot objectively
say whether there was genocide there or not. In fact, IDF made sure no
reporters were allowed into Jenin until a 'clean up' crew removed most
of the dead bodies and had them buried in unmarked graves.

you see you make 1001 arab fairy ***** jokes again..& i enjoy
laughing at them ;L

BTov again demonstrates a total absence of maturity.

BTov seems to think that he can erase history as easily as he deletes
inconvenient facts from usenet posts.

i don't erase history..god forbid!.arab lies about jenin should be
properly documented for psychiatric analysis in the future..
stop pollution! write in binary!
;L

Here is some more detail about Jenin from the Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz which BTov will probably delete if he responds to this post:

Peres calls IDF operation in Jenin a 'massacre'
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=150051
By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondents

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres Peres is very worried about the expected
international reaction as soon as the world learns the details of the
tough battle in the Jenin refugee camps, where more than 100
Palestinians have already been killed in fighting with IDF forces. In
private, Peres is referring to the battle as a "massacre."

as the guardian points out when idiot peres understood that he was
talking his typical ***** he began retracting
peres's an old ***** ;L

An impartial observer would conclude that the original Peres statement
was correct, and that Israel went into high gear damage control to
prevent 'the expected international reaction.'

give me more dear yasir jokes from 1001 arab fairy *****

You again demonstrate your immaturity.

good use of the bulldozers tho LOL

You seem to acknowledge that a massacre occurred at Jenin and you seem
happy about it. Is this another demonstration of how �humane' you
are?
.

User: "tokugawa"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	09 Sep 2003 12:39:18 PM

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message news:<3f5dd4b9@news101.his.com>...

"BTov" <dkastor6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd24d00f.0309081144.5cae8ad@posting.google.com...

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote in message

news:<fb0ae2f1.0309050857.25c4fcc6@posting.google.com>...

there was no peres in jenin..just his friend mentally disturbed larsen
who's a widely known pathological liar

And yet a perfect example of why some people feel compelled to use the word
"truth" in their Usenet handles: because they are pathological liars.

Susan

For example, on April 12, 2002, following the Jenin atrocities, Ha'aretz
innocently reported what "military sources" had told the paper: "The IDF
[Israeli army] intends to bury today Palestinians killed in the West Bank
camp. The sources said that two infantry companies, along with members of the
military rabbinate, will enter the camp today to collect the bodies. Those
who can be identified as civilians will be moved to a hospital in Jenin, and
then on to burial, while those identified as terrorists will be buried at a
special cemetery in the Jordan Valley." Apparently, no one in Israel was
particularly concerned at the time about issues of international law, war
crimes and mass graves. Israeli TV even showed, the evening before,
refrigerator trucks that were waiting outside the Jenin camp to transfer
bodies to "terrorist cemeteries".
.

User: "Susan Cohen"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	09 Sep 2003 10:59:35 PM

"BTov" <dkastor6@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bd24d00f.0309091539.6ce22b64@posting.google.com...

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote in message

news:<fb0ae2f1.0309090939.51feb687@posting.google.com>...

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message

news:<3f5dd4b9@news101.his.com>...

"BTov" <dkastor6@hotmail.com> wrote in message

truth_seeker227@yahoo.com (tokugawa) wrote in message

There were no Guardian reporters at Jenin, so they cannot

objectively

say whether there was genocide there or not. In fact, IDF made

sure no

reporters were allowed into Jenin until a 'clean up' crew removed

most

of the dead bodies and had them buried in unmarked graves.

there was no peres in jenin..just his friend mentally disturbed

larsen

who's a widely known pathological liar

And yet a perfect example of why some people feel compelled to use the

word

"truth" in their Usenet handles: because they are pathological liars.
Susan

For example, on April 12, 2002, following the Jenin atrocities,

Ha'aretz

innocently reported what "military sources" had told the paper: "The

IDF

[Israeli army] intends to bury today Palestinians killed in the West

Bank

camp. The sources said that two infantry companies, along with members

of the

military rabbinate, will enter the camp today to collect the bodies.

Those

who can be identified as civilians will be moved to a hospital in Jenin,

and

then on to burial, while those identified as terrorists will be buried

at a

special cemetery in the Jordan Valley." Apparently, no one in Israel was
particularly concerned at the time about issues of international law,

war

crimes and mass graves. Israeli TV even showed, the evening before,
refrigerator trucks that were waiting outside the Jenin camp to transfer
bodies to "terrorist cemeteries".

susan's right referring to you as a pathological silly liar:
if there were `mass graves' palistanians would've made most of it
already & international news headlines would've been running some
atrocity

And you'll note that all the screaming about "massacres" took place *before*
Israel cleared away all the booby traps & the reporters were getting in.
Some media outlets tried to make hay out of a large grave (if it could be
dignified by the word) with some 20 bodies in it, but 20+ is not thousands
or even hundreds and the casulties ended up being only ONE LESS than the
estimates Israel gave at the very beginning.

but you're so borking silly that this simple thought would never enter
your head..

& such a liar that he is ignoring the fact that the PLO themselves admitted
they lied.
They tried to put a positive spin on it; they did a complete about-face &
declared victory, saying that Israel tried to kill them all & only got 54
casulties.
Susan

you always cry international law..tell me what law exactly? what's
this? ;L

User: "Galaxy"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	31 Aug 2003 01:38:04 AM

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message
news:3f5172ce@news101.his.com...

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foc1lv8ptrd9csskagpdue8irdfc0h7egg@4ax.com...

On 29 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700,

(tokugawa)
wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

Nothing whatsoever.

Oooo, I recognize this - this is *sarcasm*!!

It is no coincidence that:
1. Alcoholics deny they have a disease.
2. Nazi war criminals denied their complicity.
3. Murderers deny that they killed anyone.
4. Antisemites deny that they are antisemitic and make excuses for why
"everyone else" is singling them out for "different" reasons than the actual
reason of them being bigots, racists, and antisemitic; these disgusting
entities are poor excuses for "human beings."
It is no coincidence.
.

User: "Ian Bailey"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	02 Sep 2003 01:47:07 AM

"Galaxy" <galaxy.faster@greatest.tv> wrote in message news:<vl35rcfaiceoa7@corp.supernews.com>...

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message
news:3f5172ce@news101.his.com...

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:foc1lv8ptrd9csskagpdue8irdfc0h7egg@4ax.com...

On 29 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700,

(tokugawa)
wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.

Nothing whatsoever.

Oooo, I recognize this - this is *sarcasm*!!

Calling someone "anti-semitic" is an excuse for zionists not to
discuss the things Israel is doing. I want Israeli Jews and
Palestinian arabs to live in peace together. That means I have to
criticise the policies of the Israeli government. Clearly then,
wanting Jews to live in peace makes me a bigot, racist, antisemitic
etc etc.
Then again, last time I tried to have a rational discussion about why
zionists flame anyone who questions their racism, I got slandered!
Funny that isn't it.....?
Ian
PS Still waiting for anyone to dispute the examples of Israeli acts of
aggression posted above.
.

User: "BTov"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	02 Sep 2003 05:16:56 AM

(Ian Bailey) wrote in message news:<984a2ef1.0309012247.49742c37@posting.google.com>...

"Galaxy" <galaxy.faster@greatest.tv> wrote in message news:

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote in message

On 29 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700,

(tokugawa)
wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.
Nothing whatsoever.

Oooo, I recognize this - this is *sarcasm*!!

to prove your intentions you should devote equal time to criticise so
called palistanian rule..this isn't happening tho..
to criticise israel you've to be in the knowledge of the facts & you
aren't like you don't know that pertaining to the disputed territories
there exists only ONE enforseable document..you don't know the
peculiarities of the un resolutions pertaining to the
terroritories..etc..etc..etc..
in general you know nothing & donning a peer gown in your position's
ridiculous..& you keep coming for more of it ;L
.

User: "Ian Bailey"
Title: Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	03 Sep 2003 01:56:56 AM

(BTov) wrote in message news:<bd24d00f.0309020216.4ba2cb44@posting.google.com>...

ianbailey@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote in message news:<984a2ef1.0309012247.49742c37@posting.google.com>...

"Galaxy" <galaxy.faster@greatest.tv> wrote in message news:

"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@his.com> wrote in message

<gabycoh@hotmail.com> wrote in message

On 29 Aug 2003 18:24:19 -0700,

(tokugawa)
wrote:

Propagating fables about Jews killing children has nothing to do with
antisemitism.
Nothing whatsoever.

Oooo, I recognize this - this is *sarcasm*!!

It is no coincidence.

I don't mind being called a fool. Noone is calling me antisemitic though. Good.
Ian
.

User: "Boondock Saint"
Title: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	30 Aug 2003 04:36:18 AM

tokugawa wrote:

<snip>

What is ironic is that in equating Zionism with Jewishness, Summers is
adopting the very tactic favoured by anti-semites. At the time of his
speech, I found myself on a listserv on which a number of individuals
opposed to the current policies of the state of Israel, and sometimes
to Zionism, started to engage in this same slippage, sometimes
opposing what they called 'Zionism' and at other times what they
called 'Jewish' interests. Whenever this occurred, there were
objections, and several people withdrew from the group.

<snip>
Wow. I really have to hand it to the Jews... they deal with some really
nasty and devious people. Why would people knowingly decide to single
out such minorities for their persecution? Why do they always do this?
Can the majority never learn to live with the minorities among themselves?
Another thing I noted, the Harvard guy was getting upset that he picked
on Israel to do this. This is a sign of their racism. There are so many
other situations on the planet, to pick on Israel like this... one has
to ask "why". But, these people do not want you to ask "why".
If people believe that these people are outside of bigotry because they
represent institutions of higher learning... these people are saddly
mistaken. These people are white bigots. They have a tongue is their
only difference.
The truth is that this whole "Zionism" and "Jewish" mix up is very, very
revealing. And, look at the woman's reaction? Nothing! How is it Jews
could stand to continue to support this woman? Hopefully, none do.
And, since when has "Zionism" become an evil word? Is it 9/11, or is it
the latest influx of Saudi monopoly oil money? Is it not essentially
racist to deny the Jews a homeplace? Is not the meaning of "Zionism"
this simple? Is it not true that such anti-zionist beliefs are so
radical they are not even accepted by the most influential European
nations? Germany, France... these nations do not denounce Zionism. They
would claim 'far from it'.
But, these people have... and they do it as if this is somesort of
acceptable thing to do... but, it is a radical thing to do, and by doing
it with this type of attitude they insinuate it is morally acceptable.
Soon, it probably will be. And, what will this mean? Oh, more war and
murders, of course.
Thanks, bigots... 'wolves in sheep's clothing'.
I envy no man. But, I know there is a Hell.
BANG BANG
Boondock Saint
.

User: "Ed"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	30 Aug 2003 08:21:07 AM

"Scottish Anti-USA" <d.allison@whsmithnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3f509254_2@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...

Because they have big noses.

Better to have a big nose than a miniscule brain like yours, right?
.

User: "Free Palestine"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	31 Aug 2003 12:55:23 AM

Boondock Saint wrote:

tokugawa wrote:

<snip>

Ahh, so Jews do not ever provoke anti-Semitism in any way, not 1% even?

Another thing I noted, the Harvard guy was getting upset that he picked
on Israel to do this.

He's Jewish, so therefore irrational in the area. Forgive him.
This is a sign of their racism. There are so many

other situations on the planet, to pick on Israel like this... one has
to ask "why". But, these people do not want you to ask "why".

Well, this is just more Zionist *****. Most of those other
situations are being roundly condemned by most of the world. Yet Israel
is supported by those who live and work in high-rises of the most modern
cities, those who control the biggest papers and corporations, the
mavens on Wall Street, in short, Israel is supported by Those Who
Control the World, the big shots, the big guys. Most of the those who
control the world, or act like they do, are Zionists.

The truth is that this whole "Zionism" and "Jewish" mix up is very, very
revealing. And, look at the woman's reaction? Nothing! How is it Jews
could stand to continue to support this woman? Hopefully, none do.

And how do you account for anti-Zionist Jews in here.

And, since when has "Zionism" become an evil word?

It is? Cool! Our project is moving forward. ;)
Is it 9/11,
Could be, it is only since then I became an anti-Zionist. Before that,
I was a Zionist for 44 years.
or is it

the latest influx of Saudi monopoly oil money? Is it not essentially
racist to deny the Jews a homeplace?

No, because they obtained it by invading a country, conquering it,
settling it and kicking out, killing, or subordinating the natives.
Jews have no right to a nation, basically.
Is not the meaning of "Zionism"

this simple?

No.
Is it not true that such anti-zionist beliefs are so

radical they are not even accepted by the most influential European
nations?

You are correct indeed.
Germany, France... these nations do not denounce Zionism. They

would claim 'far from it'.

Right, we are working on them, ok, and progress IS being made.

But, these people have... and they do it as if this is some sort of
acceptable thing to do...

Well, up until the 40's, the majority of Jews denounced Zionism.
but, it is a radical thing to do,
So was opposing slavery.
and by doing

it with this type of attitude they insinuate it is morally acceptable.

Anti-Zionism is clearly a moral philosophy.

Soon, it probably will be.

Good. Can you give us some advice on how to move our project forward?
And, what will this mean? Oh, more war and

murders, of course.

Who knows? Looks like more Jews are being killed and wounded by
anti-Jewish attacks in Israel than anywhere else. So much for the safe
homeland.
--
As of 8-13-03, in the 146 days since the start of the Iraq War, the US
has suffered 1,895 casualties (6,694 unofficial)* in the Iraq Theater,
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Palestine, Israel, Colombia,
Pakistan, the United States, Yemen, Jordan and Liberia - 312 killed,
1582 wounded (6381 unofficial) and 1 missing; or 2.1 killed per day.
For the Iraq War, there have been 1,795 US casualties (6,592
unofficial), 282 killed and 1513 wounded (6310 unofficial); or 1.9
killed per day. The British have suffered 52 killed or missing; their
wounded tally is unknown. US casualty totals cover both civilians and
military victims of the War on Terror in the locales listed above.
British totals cover the Iraq War only.
A rough though incomplete estimate of Iraqi civilan casualties so far is
7,869 killed and 19,733 wounded. The cost of the Iraq War so far has
been $70.9 billion.
*Unofficial figures includes an attempt to factor in an interview on US
NPR radio show with Lietenant-Colonel Alan DeLane, in charge of the
airlift into Andrews AF Base Hospital in Maryland. He stated that 8000+
wounded US troops from Iraq, with 90% of the injuries being directly
related to combat, have stayed in their hospital since the war started.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1011691,00.html
.

User: "Susan Cohen"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	01 Sep 2003 03:00:11 AM

<$$DISCOUNT$$> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bc7e97d35b7120989857@text.giganews.com...

Free Palestine wrote:

Ahh, so Jews do not ever provoke anti-Semitism in any way, not 1% even?

***** off you anti-semitic loon.

We were dressed like we wanted it, you know.
Susan
.

User: "$$DISCOUNT$$ "
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	01 Sep 2003 06:25:17 AM

Susan Cohen wrote:

<$$DISCOUNT$$> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bc7e97d35b7120989857@text.giganews.com...

Free Palestine wrote:

Ahh, so Jews do not ever provoke anti-Semitism in any way, not 1% even?

***** off you anti-semitic loon.

We were dressed like we wanted it, you know.

I would think that would promote semitism.
<hint to Free: $Discount$ just made a funny->
.

User: "Tilly"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	01 Sep 2003 07:49:01 AM

Free Palestine wrote:

Ahh, so Jews do not ever provoke anti-Semitism in any way, not 1%
even?

Like women who wear skimpy clothing are asking to be raped?
Tilly
bright1@hotmail.com
.

User: "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	01 Sep 2003 01:18:11 PM

Tilly wrote:

Free Palestine wrote:

Ahh, so Jews do not ever provoke anti-Semitism in any way, not 1%
even?

Like women who wear skimpy clothing are asking to be raped?

Tilly

bright1@hotmail.com

It seems to be the way of anti-semites to say it is the victims of their
hate that are to blame for their hatred. Never themselves.
Haters for the source of thier hate, should look one place to find it. In
the mirror. That mirror never fails to show the source of the hatred.
I too was guilty of that with one of your friends and you. It is when a
Rebbee told me the above and I thought about it, that I looked for ways to
end the continued hate. It seems to have worked for me, and I hope for you
and your friend. I do not mention his name as he is not part of this
thread.
I stopped posting the information for your brother as you seemed to want me
to stop.
I do co-facilate a Hep-C support group, and if I can be of any help to you
or your family in that matter (relatives sometimes need support to) feel
free to post it here or email me or have them. You have my pledge before
G_d to not do anything with it but lend support research questions and the
like. In fact if your prother does it I doubt I would notice who he is, I
get so many emails from all over the world asking questions (due to my
websites) including requests to do the html work to tell their stories.
They ususally are tight for money so I do not charge them if their story can
help someone. In fact about 600 sites and 2 webring now have urls to my two
sites (one is tehcincal - medical) and the other is one in my signitures. I
have issued 75 of awards to date to sites that meet the criteria.
I mean this from my hear,
Hope that you and your brother are still well.
--�
MattA
mailto:matta00@comcast.net?subject=HepatitusC-Objectives
For Online Email support E-mail List go to:
hepatitisc-objectives@yahoogroups.com. You must join the group at Yahoo
Communities; Medical; Self Help Support; hepatititsc-objectives and sign up.
Great group of people that support each other, those with symptoms can find
others that deal with it or better delt with it. Those on treatement have
side effects, you will find others that delt with any side effect and got
through it. Participants to date are from Canada, Europe, and the US. It
is listed as open to join everywhere Yahoo is available.
Matt's Hep-C Story web pages are back at a home. No more drop down ads
to get in your way. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/matta00
Truth about Howard Aubrey AKA madyan67:
http://www.geocities.com/lord_haha_libeler/
.

User: "The Revd Terrence Fformby-Smythe"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	03 Sep 2003 12:12:09 AM

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 14:18:11 -0400, "Matt A.00 01 is Matthew Ackerman"
<matta00@comcast.net> wrote:

Tilly wrote:

Free Palestine wrote:

Ahh, so Jews do not ever provoke anti-Semitism in any way, not 1%
even?

Like women who wear skimpy clothing are asking to be raped?

Tilly

ditsy1@hotmail.com

It seems to be the way of anti-semites to say it is the victims of their
hate that are to blame for their hatred. Never themselves.

Duh. If jews didn't behave the way they do, there would be no
'anti-semitism'�. It seems to be the way of semites to say that those
who react to their behaviour are responsible for it.

Haters for the source of thier hate, should look one place to find it. In
the mirror. That mirror never fails to show the source of the hatred.

Same old jew b"llshit. Always try to blame someone else for something
which is entirely your own fault.
(remaining babble circumcised)
.

User: "Yechidah"
Title: Re: While They Persecute the Jews... Re: No, it's not anti-semitic	31 Aug 2003 01:03:10 AM

Isaiah Chapter 59
1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, neither His
ear heavy, that it cannot hear;
2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins
have hid His face from you, that He will not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity;
your lips have spoken lies, your tongue muttereth wickedness.
4 None sueth in righteousness, and none pleadeth in truth; they trust in
vanity, and speak lies, they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
5 They hatch basilisks' eggs, and weave the spider's web; he that eateth of
their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out into a viper.
6 Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall men cover themselves
with their works; their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence
is in their hands.
7 Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood; their
thoughts are thoughts of iniquity, desolation and destruction are in their
paths.
8 The way of peace they know not, and there is no right in their goings;
they have made them crooked paths, whosoever goeth therein doth not know
peace.
9 Therefore is justice far from us, neither doth righteousness overtake us;
we look for light, but behold darkness, for brightness, but we walk in
gloom.
10 We grope for the wall like the blind, yea, as they that have no eyes do
we grope; we stumble at noonday as in the twilight; we are in dark places
like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears, and mourn sore like doves; we look for right,
but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.
12 For our transgressions are multiplied before Thee, and our sins testify
against us; for our transgressions are present to us, and as for our
iniquities, we know them:
13 Transgressing and denying the LORD, and turning away from following our
God, speaking oppression and perverseness, conceiving and uttering from the
heart words of falsehood.
14 And justice is turned away backward, and righteousness standeth afar off;
for truth hath stumbled in the broad place, and uprightness cannot enter.
{S}
15 And truth is lacking, and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a
prey. And the LORD saw it, and it displeased Him that there was no justice;
16 And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no
intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him; and His
righteousness, it sustained Him;
17 And He put on righteousness as a coat of mail, and a helmet of salvation
upon His head, and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was
clad with zeal as a cloak.
18 According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, fury to His
adversaries, recompense to His enemies; to the islands He will repay
recompense.
19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and His glory from
the rising of the sun; for distress will come in like a flood, which the
breath of the LORD driveth.
20 And a redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from
transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21 And as for Me, this is My covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit
that is upon thee, and My words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not
depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply