Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer angrybirds angrybirds angrybirds  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports

Now for the big question ... why so much vitriol directed at the Jewish State

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-270 of 270 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2007 2:39:17 PM PST
A. Wood says:
Interesting that you cover in depth all the links I posted other than the two which do deal with and mention Arabs and then claim that because another does not mention Arabs that it has nothing to do with this thread.
I posted them to give a flavour of their output which prior to this you had characterised as not something you agreed with but mainly to do with pointing out anti Semitic literature. Do you now contend that they could not have used the language I stated given the tone of their other output which I provided links to?
I can find you links to any amount of right wing settler's organisations. If I remember correctly the last time I did post something on their actions it was greeted with "We'll it's understandable that they would attack Palestinians because the Palestinians are attacking them" Which is a bizarre logic when they are settling someone else's land and also "You cannot believe anything from an Muslim Palestinian source because the Quran tells them they can lie"
Why would I offer any rebuttal to your Palestinian clips as I have never argued that the Palestinians and many of their groups are morally bankrupt. I have no problem seeing that the Palestinians have had some terrible leadership and committed some atrocities it's just that unlike you I can also see some reprehensible actions carried out by the Israeli side and some hate filled and promoting groups on their side.
It's the difference between a bigot and a rational person.

I still want you to explain what radical Islam had to do with the French riots. You've never shown any interest in avoiding pointing out anything bad about Islam prior to this but you seem really keen to avoid this one.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 4, 2007 2:45:18 PM PST
alphabeta49 says:
Wood wrote:


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 5, 2007 11:35:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 5, 2007 11:36:35 AM PST
A. Wood says:
You still sleeping? Hard work that counting lark is it not, parhaps your mother will bring your blankie to you later.

Just couldn't get your head round the French riots could you?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2007 9:19:49 AM PST
Ben says:
No. 2 is a misrepresentation of the argument. Israel is frequently criticized by human rights groups for violations in war - targeting civilians - and with their treatment of Palestinians in occupied territories. Specifically, military actions are condemned.

No. 4 Did Britain and the US occupy Germany for 40 years? Were they asked to return occupied Germany and then refuse? Did they try to start settlements in occupied areas? Did they build a wall around germany that crossed over into France, Holland, Austria, etc?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2007 4:56:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2007 4:57:44 PM PST
Stefan says:
True. Israel is frequently criticized - no argument there. See

That they are targeting civlians, though, is a lie. Israelis target terrorists who hide behind civilians.

Germany, as far as I can tell, agreed to peace treaties which did not deny the right of the US and Britain to exist. If Germans had acted the way Palestinians do, turning the destruction of another nation into their primary national purpose, advocating terror and violence and inculcating this into their kids, you can bet things would be very, very different. No responsible government would allow such a festering sore to perpetuate itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2007 11:03:44 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 23, 2007 11:04:06 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2007 11:06:19 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on May 15, 2011 1:12:18 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2007 12:37:29 PM PST
True Blue says:
The only unique thing about the "Jewish state's position" is the lack of criticism it has received from the zionist brainwashed American people for the last 50 years. Israel is war crimes and crimes against humanity in action by a group of global criminals calling themselves zionists and Jews. The people controlling the Israeli gov't are no more true Jews than G W Bush is a Christian. They are Ashkenazi Talmudic barbarians. Why does Israel have no extradition treaty with any country ? It is a safe haven for every sick and twisted criminal on the planet that cloaks himself or herself in "Judaism". There should be no "Jewish" state just as there should be no "Christian", "Islamic" or any religious state. There should be no safe haven for any criminal anywhere in the world.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2007 4:04:46 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 24, 2007 4:05:08 PM PST
L. King says:
Not true and off topic, unless you want to offer it as an example of more unwarranted vitriol.

Israel has extradition treaties with Canada and the United States. (You might also check for treaties with other countries that maintain formal relations with Israel.) Like all such treaties extradition is not instantaneous and has to be pursued through the courts. There are also clauses which provide the option of prosecuting an individual through Israel's courts.

Have no idea what an "Ashkenazi Talumudic barbarian" is - sounds kinda cool like a character in a video game.

Of course there should be safe havens. Where else would U.S. draft dodgers and all those criminal converts from Islam go? Heck, if I were an indentured Christian servant in Saudi Arabia suspected of stealing a loaf of bread I'd give my right arm (no pun intended) to have a place to to run to.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2007 11:11:42 AM PST
Stefan says:
Yes, Chris. like her, precisely, a foolish human shield protecting tunnels for weapon and explosives smuggling - in the "homes" she protected.

"Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 - March 16, 2003) was an American member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) who traveled to the Gaza Strip during the Second Intifada. She was killed when she tried to obstruct a Caterpillar D9 armoured bulldozer operated by the Israel Defense Forces close to the border with Egypt while she was acting as a Human shield to protect what she believed to be a home under demolition threat.

The circumstances of Corrie's death are disputed. The ISM says that the driver of the bulldozer deliberately ran her over twice.[1] The official Israeli Government Report and the IDF deny that, and state that she was killed by falling debris pushed over by a bulldozer whose driver did not see her, and that the bulldozer was clearing brush and not engaged in a demolition when Corrie impeded its path, interfering with security operations. The area contains a network of Smuggling tunnels used by Hamas and other groups for smuggling weapons and explosives from Egypt to the Gaza Strip side of Rafah."

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 25, 2007 11:38:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 25, 2007 11:40:39 AM PST
Stefan says:
True Blue is exposed as a trueblue bigot. Of course there are Muslim and Christian nations!

Ever heard of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Pakistan, among many others? Have you perchance heard of any Christian nations in Europe and elsewhere? France, e.g.? What is this cross-like symbol on so many European flags - just a coincidence?

Anbd by the way - those countries are no safe havens for Jews whose crime is being Jewish, Ashkenazi Talmudic or otherwise

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2007 6:46:25 PM PST
P. H PICOT says:
If Israel wants peace, a good start would be to fully implement UNSCR 242. There is not doubt that Israel intends to keep all of the land and water they have annexed on the West Bank, and give the Palestinians the crumbs, like old time Southern farmers and the KKK pushing share croppers around. The only question to be answered in the current peace talks is how little Israel can give back. It is like catching a guy who stole your tv, and he offers to give the electric cord back. The Israels call the Palestinians a name that the KKK would be familiar with (sand-n*****s), and treat them like that. 500,000 Palestinian were driven from their land, and in an age where Jews robbed by Hitler and his thugs, are getting their property back, giving the Palestinians their land back should be something that the israelis would champion. The Holocoust museum is is joke, it is not about mans inhumanity to man, it just just about man's inhumanity to Jews. Isreal is inhuman to the Palestinians with little complaint from most Jews. Israel is not about justice or international law, it is about greed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2007 6:54:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 28, 2007 6:55:28 PM PST
J. A Magill says:

Ah, the absurdites run wild. Israel has already offered the Palestinians over 90% of the disputed territories, that doesn't sound like crumbs, that sounds like the loaf! Moreover, while the meaning of 242 is in some dispute, what is not is that it makes no mention of a Palestinian state, but instead of returning territory to parties to the conflict -- Egypt and Jordan. Near as I can tell, neither is interested. As for your acusation about Israeli use of invecitve, I am uncertain how you would know, let alone how that would translate into hebrew...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2007 7:22:24 PM PST
J. A Magill says:
By the by, an interesting article on the world's double standard regardining Israel:

The British Inquisition Goes Global
By Daniel Mandel | Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Recently, an American-Israeli, Asaf Romirowsky, was asked to step down from a University of Delaware panel discussion on anti-Americanism because one of the participants, the University's Muqtedar Khan, expressed an unwillingness to appear on a panel discussion with anyone who had once served in the Israel Defense Forces.

Khan did not bother to assert, much less prove, that the past performance of (compulsory) military service by an Israeli was something illicit. He merely pretended that such conduct is self-evidently deserving of ostracism.

Why the pretense? Perhaps because it was a handy distraction from the discrimination increasingly deployed against Israeli Jews in the academy. Most Israeli Jews (but not Israeli Muslims) perform military service and to exclude on this basis is to impose a virtually blanket ban on them.

This occurrence at University of Delaware is part of a wider pattern which originated in Britain. In April 2002, two British academics, Steven and Hilary Rose, initiated an academic boycott campaign against Israel, calling for a moratorium on all cultural and research links with Israel until Israel pursues peace talks along the lines of the faux peace plan put forward by the Arab League in 2002.

In June 2002, Mona Baker, a professor at UMIST, sacked two Tel Aviv University academics from the editorial boards of the two journals she edits. She offered them however, the choice of retaining their positions if they sever ties with Israel and leave the country. In 2003, an Oxford pathology professor, Andrew Wilkie, rejected an Israeli research applicant, explaining that his detestation of Israel's policies impelled him to reject an Israeli citizen, irrespective of the individual's personal views or merits. Similarly, two Israelis highly critical of Israel - one Jewish and one Arab - had their submission to an English academic journal returned with an editor's note advising that it had been rejected because its authors were Israelis - though in this case, the two were offered reconsideration if they inserted some paragraphs likening Israel to apartheid South Africa.

In 2005, Britain's Association of University Teachers (AUT) voted to impose an academic boycott on two Israeli universities. The country's other major union, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), voted in May 2006 in favor of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions that do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's "apartheid policies."

The British pattern has been replicated globally: a petition for boycotting research and cultural links with Israel was taken up quickly in the U.S. (April 2002) and Australia (May 2002), with similar initiatives following in France, Italy, Belgium and in the Scandinavian countries.

It has also spread beyond academe: In May 2006, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario, the Ontario wing of Canada's largest union, voted to join an international boycott campaign against Israel "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination ." This April, British journalists implicitly confirmed past complaints about anti-Israel bias (always indignantly denied) when its National Union of Journalists voted by 66 to 54 to boycott Israeli goods. This was followed in May by a group of 130 British doctors calling for a boycott of the Israel Medical Association (IMA) and its expulsion from the World Medical Association since, in their words, the IMA had "refused" to protest about Israeli "war crimes."

Injustice and discrimination aside, the results of boycotting individual Israelis occasionally have been absurd: thus, in 2003, the chief of Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital's gene-therapy institute, engaged in research to cure a blood disease prevalent among Palestinians, was refused assistance from a Norwegian colleague.

What is one to conclude? That shunning Israeli Jews takes place on the inquisitorial presumption that terrible guilt attaches to each individual Israeli Jew unless innocence is proved. In short, Israeli Jews are guilty until proven innocent. Innocence, in turn, may only be demonstrated (occasionally, at least) by explicit condemnation of the policies of its democratically elected government - in short, by Soviet-style denunciations. Nor has dissent from this position been adjudged an admissible alternative by the inquisitors. For them, political orthodoxy has become an ideal.

Academics from even truly tyrannical and vicious regimes like North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia or Iran face no such test or sanction, nor has it occurred to anyone that they should. It is an elementary principle that private individuals are not responsible for the actions of their governments. This principle evidently does not apply to the British Inquisition.

Others have rightly noted of this incident that Khan was wrong to avoid vigorous debate with an opponent. But that point is scarcely the most important. It was not debate alone that Khan avoided. Rather, he was repudiating Israeli Jews within the precincts of academic debate. The British Inquisition operates on a similar principle of excluding Israeli Jews from rights and privileges accorded everyone else. It is part of a wider strategy for their ostracism - and it is gaining a presence in America.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2007 4:16:37 AM PST
hmp says:

Has PICOT actually read UN242? How convenient to ignore this paragraph:

"Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

By their commitment to the negation of this paragraph, the Palestinians make the implementation of 242 impossible.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 9, 2007 8:21:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 9, 2007 8:25:35 PM PST
Jill Malter says:
True Blue,

Lack of criticism of Israel. Um, are you kidding? Or is your point that what Israel has been getting is demonization rather than criticism?

I am a liberal, a Pagan, and a Zionist. Since I support human rights for all, I have to be a Zionist. Otherwise, I would be against human rights for Levantine Jews: we saw in the 1930s and 1940s that without the success of Zionism, Jews in the Levant would not have human rights, nor would Jews from elsewhere even be permitted to join their brethren in the Levant.

This is a pretty good thread, and I'd like to see some discussion of the etiology, nature, and consequences of the anti-Zionist lies we see at the UN, in much of academia, and in some media outlets.

Some folks say that Jews started the whole problem of anti-Semitism by calling themselves "the chosen people." But that does not make much sense, given that pretty much all groups do roughly the same thing to some extent. I think a clue can be taken from the fact that most minorities have problems of the same sort. The problems the Jews have had may have been somewhat atypical in part because Christianity and Islam are daughter religions of Judaism, so Jews received some special contempt from two of the four largest religious groups in the world.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2007 9:28:25 AM PST
alphabeta49 says:
Christopher S. Susi says:
"Israelis target terrorists who hide behind civilians. "

Like her:

From your own link:

Other witnesses, however, reported that Corrie had scaled a pile of dirt but then lost her footing and fell backward behind it, out of sight of the bulldozer operator. The bulldozer continued moving forward, covering Corrie with dirt and then crushing her.

It was not clear whether the bulldozer operator could hear protesters' yells over the sound of the machine.


Someone operating heavy machinery has plenty to keep themselves occupied. That's why people of normal intelligence and common sense avoid placing themselves in the path of a bulldozer.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 3, 2009 7:15:49 PM PST
W. Lorenz says:
Magill asks, "what is really behind all of the bile?" implying that anyone that criticizes Israel or the lobby is an anti-semite. That is extremely boring and improper. The fact is all americans should be outraged by the truth of American support of Israel because primarily it is completely outside of America's and the Region's self interest. It makes no sense at all that the US pours massive subsidies into a state behaves the way that Israel does. I sought out articles and books such as this because I cannot for the life of me figure out why the United States of America stands by while Israel stomps us and common sense besides. The problems in the middle east are not insoluble but they always will be while the America provides unconditional support for Israel.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2009 6:43:24 PM PST
Israel really isn't a democracy, if one counts the illegally occupied territories as part of Israel. Even without the illegally occupied territories, the Palestinians do not have equal rights as the Israeli Jews. They are frequently dispossessed of their homes, cannot marry as they wish (all Israeli marriages must past the scrutiny of Orthodox rabbis who use the Talmud as a guideline), and their freedom of movement is restricted. Furthermore, state funds are used to build yeshivas.

Israel does have a terrible human rights record. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch reports are cited and endorsed by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, at least for non-Israel states such as Sudan. It's not these agencies' mandate to be pro or con with respect to Israel, but neutral observers. The UN also condemns Israeli warcrimes, such as the Qana shelling of civilians and the Gaza 2009 incursion. The UN staff leading these investigations aren't proxies of an Arab despotic governmennt but respected officials from Western Europe, and as for Gaza, by Mr. Goldstone, a prominent zionist from South Africa.

As for Egypt, it's an atrocity that the U.S. gives Mubarak money to oppress his citizens and maintain an oligarchy. There needs to be a huge groundswell of anti-Egpt-foreign aid also. Egypt gets annually $2.5 billion from the U.S.

Israel doesn't want a way out of the West Bank, it is still subsidizing settlements there.

Ironically, it was in the pre-1948 establishment of Israel UN debates that Iran proposed a single state solution, with Palestinians and Israelis peacefully coexisting in a democratic state. In 1918 both sides agreed they would work together as ethnic 'cousin's to expel the colonial overlords of the British Empire.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 27, 2009 10:33:31 PM PST
J. A Magill says:
Obi, reading posts of folks like yourself, I can only wonder as to why someone with so much obvious bile is so plainly ignorant of basic facts with regards to the subject of their wrath. Where to begin? In the first place, whatever your feelings about Israel's presence in the West Bank, claiming that this somehow obliterates Israel's status as a democracy is absurd; do you believe that Britain, France, and the US ceased to be democracies when they occupied Germany since they failed to grant germans the vote in their perspective states? The notion would be as novel as it is laughable.

Likewise, your claims about Israel Arabs are likewise incorrect. While it is true that in Israel a host of civil matters are run through religious courts -- a policy with which I vehemently disagree -- you are wrong that rabbis sit in judgment over christian or Muslim marriages. Quite the contrary, each religion is master of its own domain in these areas. Such a structure is not uncommon in other parts of the world and while I think it needs to be changed, it does not deny Arab Israelis any rights.

The same might be said of your insinuation that the treatment of Israel's minorities somehow voids its democracy. All societies, including democracies, struggle with questions of minority rights; do you believe France is not a democracy for its treatment of French North Africans? What of British Indians? Why must Israel be held to a different and plainly higher standard?

As for your question of Israel's human rights record it begs the question terrible in relationship to whose? Certainly the amount of attention and vitriol Israel recieves from the UN isn't comenserate with its record. Likewise, you seem to be unaware of the questionable records of many of those you praise. Human Rights Watch suffered much embarassment when it was revealed that it raised money from wealth Saudi Arabians (hardly a bastion of human rights yet no where on the UNs radar when it comes to their policies) based on their targeting of Israel. This hardly seems unbiased. The same might be said of the Goldstone report, one member of which (whom you strangely and in a rather racist fashion choose to dub as western and therefore respected) was a British law professor who declared Israel guilty of warcrimes before the investigation began. Another, a Pakistani "activist" declared that questioning the veracity of any Palestinian witness would be racist and offensive. This is your idea of respectable and unbiased?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  41
Total posts:  270
Initial post:  Sep 5, 2007
Latest post:  Nov 27, 2009

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by Stephen M. Walt (Hardcover - August 27, 2007)
4.3 out of 5 stars (368)