Hmmm... I guess now they'll have to come up with another bogeyman... before the elections for sure.
What country is next on the Israeli hit list?
Syria I reckon.
--boozo Sun Dec 14 11:05:14 2003
jm: Claiming that Israel (which means more than the politically-demarcated geographical area to many people) is behind the manhunt for Hussein is pretty asinine, and "hit list", whether or not it means "mafia", implies underhanded targetting.
lup: i have a very hard time believing anyone who is fervently anti-Israel is not expressing some anti-semitism
jm: Yeah. I've never heard a good explanation out of anyone like that, either. [their explanation] is always "Oh, they're the same and they're different", in regard to anti-Israel/anti-semitism.
and my reaction, whether vocalized or not is pretty much invariably "You're an idiot"
--jm Sun Dec 14 16:18:09 2003
The difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel: Anti-Semitism means anti-Jew. Anti-Israel means being against the actions and policies of that country's government *OR* being against the manner in which Israel was created (in effect taking sovereignty away from one group and giving it to another) and the manner in which the country has protected that sovereignty.
--kingfresca Sun Dec 14 17:44:59 2003
PWN3D PWN3D PWN3D PWN3D PWN3D!
I love that word. PWN3D!!!!1
--Nick B Mon Dec 15 01:27:51 2003
Kingfresca, I think the issue jm was referring to was that Israel is a Jewish State. I could be wrong but I believe that the separation of religion and government is not recognized in Israel, much like its neighbors.
Also, be wary of the term anti-Semitism. In common American usage it means anti-Jewish, but Hebrews aren't the only Semites.
--Eric Mon Dec 15 08:14:23 2003
jm... Sorry, but you haven't done your research. The original proposals for the Iraq invasion (to be followed by invasions of other countries in the mideast) was written under the sponsorship of the Israeli Govt.
(Benjamin Netmenyahu (sp?) in 1995.)
The plan was titled “A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. I think anyone who googles on it will find plenty of material.
The plan was triggered by boasts from Saddam (in response to the presense of Israeli WMD's) that he could retailiate with rockets filled with Sarin or VX over Israeli cities. (UN Weapons Report)
Remember that those who criticized the Nazis were labeled as 'anti-Arayan' by the Hitler regime. Those who criticized the Japanese invasion of China were, of course, anti-Japanese...and the list goes on...
--boozo Mon Dec 15 10:25:30 2003
Eric, if you look up anti-semite in the same dictionary, you'll find that the term does refer to the Jews almost exclusively among the semites.
--LAN3 Mon Dec 15 14:52:39 2003
The war in Iraq has been waged by Americans according to American policy. The resposibility, both material and moral, is ours. To scapegoat the Israeli government or the Israeli people for our actions is an injustice not only to Israel but also to America.
You refute the charges of being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic with the historical examples of the Nazi and Japanese invasions during and preceding World War II. However, there is a clear difference between those examples and the current situation: Israel has invaded no one. America invaded Iraq, along with our allies from Britain and Austrailia; Polish troops were killed, even Japan now has combat forces in or on their way to Iraq. But Israel has not participated in this war and is not participating in it. I for one have no problem with being against the war, but if this is the case I think you should look at the real and clear aggressiors in this war: ourselves in the United States. To reimagine this conflict in terms of a supposed Israeli conspiracy seems to me to be simply denying our own culpability by using a convenient, easy and familiar target.
You also cite the 1995 report "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. I would answer by saying, firstly, that this can hardly be called the "original" proposal of the Iraq invasion, as it was written 4 years after our first invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, this report means basically nothing. It is the job of strategists to create strategies. It is the obligation of the government to choose the best strategy to persue and therefore the resposibility of the nation to elect a government that will represent their wishes. The fact is that even if we used their strategy as a starting point, it was our government who decided to implement it. My guess is that Israel has hundreds of different proposed strategies that no doubt include all sort of contingencies, such as wars with Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and probably even America, Uruguay and Atlantis. Israel is a sovereign nation that has a duty to priotect itself and it's people and it would be seriously remiss if it did not plan for these things. Prior to World War 2 it's true that the United States already had in place a strategy for combatting the Japanese in the Pacific, just in case. But we also had in place strategies for a naval war against Britain, not because we wanted or ever expected such a thing, but because it was their duty to have us prepared with a strategy just in case. Regardless of the fact that Israel had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and regardless of the supposition that it was this plan that the US might have used, the fact is plain that Israel did not implement it and we did. The fact that Israel benefits from our decision does not mean they can blamed for it.
To sum up, then, I believe your arguments to not only be incorrect but, more to the point, irrelevant. And while I don't know you and therefore will not presume to judge whether or not there is any anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic feeling behind them, your comments are unnecessary and silly at best and at worst reinforce the darkest, most lingering prejudice this world has. For my part, as an American, I take my full share of the reponsibility for this war, for though I do not and did not agree wit it, it was done in my name and therefore I share in the moral obligation.
--Scott H Mon Dec 15 15:44:06 2003
A couple points in response to Scott.
1) The "anti-semetic" angle has nothing to do with 'invasions'... but has everything to do with a common strategy of engaging in name-calling when confronted with criticism of a nation's/groups actions or policies.
Criticize Israel = 'anti semetic'.
Point out that US policy in the mideast is essentially controlled by Israel = 'anti semetic'.
Point out that refusal of the 'right of return' is immoral, unjust and illegal = 'anti semetic'.
Criticize the bombing of civilian targets, extra-judicial assassinations, settler goon squads, land expropriation at the point of a gun = 'anti semetic'.
Point out that the neocon architected invasion of Iraq is following an Israeli sponsored plan written by the same folks that are now highly placed in the Bush regime = 'anti semetic'
The truth speaks for itself... sometimes it just takes a long while to come out.
Israel had no intention of invading/occupying Iraq itself. That's far beyond the scope of it's capabilities and never part of "the plan"... the plan required another bigger,stronger nation to do that part.. guess who?
To see the 'next step' of the plan in action just watch the current "demonization" of Syria... as evidenced by the latest round of US sanctions, saber-rattling, right-wing rhetoric,cross-border raids and the like.
If the Bush regime is returned to power in 2004, the axe will fall on Syria next.
As far as being an American and "accepting responsibility...
Sorry, "not in my name was this done".
The war was (as obvious now) sold on a wholesale packaging of lies to the American people.
These unfortunate folk have neither the access to real information or the educational background to really know any better than to lap it up.
This is a pathetic and dangerous situation for the rest of the world, but in the view of the US power structure, the rest of the world doesn't matter.
--boozo Mon Dec 15 19:24:25 2003
here's the thing:
"Criticize the bombing of civilian targets, extra-judicial assassinations, settler goon squads, land expropriation at the point of a gun = 'anti semetic'. "
THAT's not anti-semetic but...
"That's far beyond the scope of it's capabilities and never part of "the plan"... the plan required another bigger,stronger nation to do that part.. guess who?"
THAT is. Israel has no control over United States policy. American Jews sympathetic to Israel have no more control over US policy than any other citizens of a democracy do. to suggest otherwise is to bring to the surface all the traditional european bullshit about jewish control, jewish war-mongering, etc etc.
it is unfortunate that the charge of anti-semitism is used so often to defend israel from valid criticism that some people like you can't see the difference between those two statements. i for one have certainly been accused, i believe falsely, of anti-semitism in response to what i felt were valid criticisms of israeli policy. but the united states is responsible for the policy created by the united states. and it was not israel who lied to you, and sold the american people on a bogus war under false pretenses.
the real problem is not that israel is controlling american policy, but rather that both countries are being controlled by right wing republican and likud ideologues, who see force as the answer to virtually all problems, dismiss international law, and drag their terrified constituents into an endless, unwinnable war. given the fundamental compatability between the ideologies of the two governments, it is not a surprise that "A Clean Break" authors Douglas Feith and Richard Perle would find influence in both governments. but that hardly means one government is controling the other. perle and feith are, after all, americans, not israelis.
--me Mon Dec 15 23:32:30 2003
I believe the original reference to anti-semitism on this thread was made not because Israeli policy was critized. It was made because Israel was being critized now -- baselessly, for American military actions. The idea of the Jewish agenda is centuries old, and the concept of "the Plan" is remarkably suspicious.
The previous comment (though largely I agree) suggests that Boozo's failure to discern between fair criticism of Israel and anti-semitic remarks is somehow the fault of his accusers. I'd like to think Boozo could develop the sophistication to tell them apart on his own.
--brooke Tue Dec 16 11:24:26 2003
Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!