Soladrin wrote:
I would hardly call Hamas a victim.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Like the IDF couldn't conquer Gaza if they wanted too. Hahahahahaha. Everyone laugh at the Canadian.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I didn't miss it, unless you can produce the evidence that they gave notice, or Hamas did such a thing with no evidence what so ever.

You keep ignoring this part: Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given.

Pointing to two or three cases where they can be shown to be military targets, and saying therefore the 2000 other hits must also be military targets is outright ludicrous.

As the occupying force everything they are doing right now is against the Geneva convention and ergo warcrimes.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Generally those who have been invaded are the victim.

Blaming them for being invaded and occupied is the same as saying in WWII the french resistance is evil and full of terrorists, how dare they fight back against those who invaded them. Germany should have kept killing everyone there until france laid down it's weapons and accepted it's occupation.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Everyone laugh at the blood thirsty american who thinks any country should be free to invade any other country for any reasons what so ever.

Oh wait, like they did in Iraq. But I guess you should have just let Iraq keep Kuwait, after all they did conquer it.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Blaming them for being invaded and occupied is the same as saying in WWII the french resistance is evil and full of terrorists, how dare they fight back against those who invaded them. Germany should have kept killing everyone there until france laid down it's weapons and accepted it's occupation.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Blaming the victim and Godwinning in the last page- will we win dakkabingo before the lock?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I didn't miss it, unless you can produce the evidence that they gave notice, or Hamas did such a thing with no evidence what so ever.

You keep ignoring this part: Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given.

Pointing to two or three cases where they can be shown to be military targets, and saying therefore the 2000 other hits must also be military targets is outright ludicrous.

As the occupying force everything they are doing right now is against the Geneva convention and ergo warcrimes.

Hamas are also meant to clearly mark certain buildings under the law of war to help prevent targeting of these facilities. Given their disregard for the lawful conduct of war (when it suits them) has this happened?

I haven't ignored anything, it has already been pointed out several times by myself and others that Israel warns residents of airstrikes and asks them to leave the vicinity. Israel has a proven track record of making attempts to mitigate civilian casualties, and developing a pioneering warning system before carrying out strikes. That is indisputable. Hamas's record shows the opposite.
If you would like an example of Israel warning a hospital (i.e. giving notice) there is - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/10970795/Gaza-hospital-defies-Israel-evacuation-warning-amid-fears-for-frail-patients.html
As I said, this is an example. Feel free to ignore it at your leisure while demanding thousands of other examples you'll see fit to ignore in any event.

What is ludicrous is ignoring evidence that runs against your narrative while asking for details of every military strike in the midst of a hot conflict. Or proclaiming that Israel are committing war crimes without actually waiting for evidence from each party to be provided.

So launching hundreds of rockets at your neighbour and provoking a conflict makes you a victim. Interesting definition.
Was Kuwait launching rockets at Iraq?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
An interesting article from ArabNews that asks the question, "Why hasn't Hamas built any bomb shelters?"

http://www.arabnews.com/news/602511

I'm sure our ill-informed yet dogmatic Canadian friend here will argue that Israel intercepts building materials that could be used to build bomb shelters. This is patently ridiculous, however, given that Hamas has built a number of shelters...for their bombs; a network of tunnels that would make the Vietcong proud.

The truth is that there are no bomb shelters in Gaza because Hamas wants to parade dead children around in front of the camera to garner international support.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Now why not address the real issue, doesn't a country have the right to defend itself and fight back against it's invaders, even after occupation?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
An interesting article from ArabNews that asks the question, "Why hasn't Hamas built any bomb shelters?"

http://www.arabnews.com/news/602511

I'm sure our ill-informed yet dogmatic Canadian friend here will argue that Israel intercepts building materials that could be used to build bomb shelters. This is patently ridiculous, however, given that Hamas has built a number of shelters...for their bombs; a network of tunnels that would make the Vietcong proud.

The truth is that there are no bomb shelters in Gaza because Hamas wants to parade dead children around in front of the camera to garner international support.

Hamas wants Israel to Bomb and Invade Gaza. So don't do it.

One or two people have asked me what I think of the current state of affairs in Gaza. More or less the same as I did the last time – see here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1104697/PETER-HITCHENS-Will-Israel-learn-Each-bomb-gift-enemies.html

I am distressed by the way in which supporters of Israel feel the need to be so uncritical about such things.

I remain a hard-line Jabotinsky Zionist, unmoved by megatons of Arab and Muslim propaganda on this issue, sceptical of every ‘peace process’ so far suggested and unconvinced that there is really a ‘Two-State solution’ available. No Jewish or Arab leader could agree to a truly fair and workable deal, without enraging his own side. Much better to develop an informal compromise at low level.

And even I can see that Israeli bombing and shelling of Gaza is *exactly what Hamas wants*.

It will solve nothing. Israel has done very well with its missile shields and being far less densely-populated than Gaza can protect its people reasonably effectively. Any losses will of course be tragic, but the tragedy will not be lessened by matching tragedies in Gaza.

I also (having many times visited Israel and the neighbouring territory, including Gaza itself) rather like the peoples of the region, sympathize with them, living in fear in their homes, want to spare them from death and terror.

Hamas, as all experts know, is in quite a lot of difficulty since it lost its friends, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood government. An Israeli attack is about the only thing that could once again unite the people of Gaza under Hamas’s banner. So why do it?

By that logic the pre-Civil Rights America was only structurally biased against Black people, it wasn't anti-Black.

 Soladrin wrote:
Demonstrations against Israel in Brussels and Paris went out of hand today.

People were running around with signs saying DEATH TO ALL JEWS and such.

And they wonder why we back Israel.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Blaming the victim and Godwinning in the last page- will we win dakkabingo before the lock?

Let's make an effort.

Also, are we not forgetting that Hamas was voted into power, it wasn't some coup or anything, the people wanted the guys that use human shields and have an objective of racism and extermination. Obviously not all the people voted for them, but it's still the case that a majority supports these murderers.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Blaming the victim and Godwinning in the last page- will we win dakkabingo before the lock?

Let's make an effort.

Also, are we not forgetting that Hamas was voted into power, it wasn't some coup or anything, the people wanted the guys that use human shields and have an objective of racism and extermination. Obviously not all the people voted for them, but it's still the case that a majority supports these murderers.

 Jihadin wrote:
I thought the world had become more tranquil

 LordofHats wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I thought the world had become more tranquil

Well being in the region of Palestine/Israel might suck, but don't worry;



Bunnies make everything better (well, they don't make 30 year wars better, but we can't have everything now can we?)

The Middle East is just gonna keep sucking for the next few years it seems. Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Iraq, and now its looking like some more serious gak might be kicking up in Egypt. Lebanon's been teetering around since that prime minister got blown up. World keeps on a turning.

Anti semites welcomed as heroes in the muslim world

Jewish schools and synagogues are heavily protected bunkers. The violence of Muslims against Jews is no coincidence, it has nothing to do with Isreal but stems from centuries of carefully cultivated hate of Jews, says David Suurland.

David Suurland

In March 2012, the 23 year old Mohammed Merah entered a Jewish primary school armed with a gun and carefully cultivated hate against Jews in the French city of Toulouse. There he killed a rabbi and three children. He lifted up the seven year old Myriam Monsonego, after which he put the gun against her temple and shot her through the head.

If this Jew hunt, for it was nothing else, wasnt already the writing on the wall, then the reactions would have been. Immediately after the identity of Merah became known a group was started on Facebook where people could show their support - to the perpetrator mind you, not the victims.

In the space of a few hours 2000 French Muslims had already voiced their support for their brother Merah. Only because the French authorities forced Facebook to close this group did this number not increase markedly [not exactly the words he uses, he says: 'werden dat er niet veel meer', but the translation conveys the general meaning]. Neighbors congratulated the mother of Merah on the heroic deed of her son and as posthumous declarations of support to Merah antisemetic incidents in France had risen by 40% after the first ten days of the attack. The Jewish school was burried onder phone calls and e-mails that threathened to finish the work of Merah.

Attacks like those in Toulouse, Brussels [the recent shooting in a Jewish museum by a returned Jihadist] or the assault on two synagogues in Paris are not isolated incidents. They are the logical consequence of broadly based and deeply embedded hate against Jews in the Islamic community. In almost all large European cities with sizable Islamic populations Jews have to face structural intimidations, threats and acts of violence, mainly from the Islamic corner. Where does this hate come from?

Many Muslims, according to them, do not hate Jews; they just respond to the injustice that is being done to the Palestinians. This excuse of moral outrage is absolutely unbelievable. Where where they when other Muslims suffered injustice? The killings of Saddam Hussein, ISIS or al-Qaeda in Iraq, the 170.000 dead and millions of refugees in Syria; the Arab massacre of 200.000 black Muslims in Darfur did not achieve one credible demonstration on the Spuiplein [a location in the centre of The Hague]. A hundred dead Palestinians on the other hand are a ''genocide'' comparable to the Holocaust, managing to cut the Islamic sense of justice to the bone. At least, that is what they would like us to believe.

This would involve the ''fight against zionism''. But that is an old and meaningless semantic ploy. Just like the nazis primarily meant the Jews with the term ''communists'', and the communists talked about ''capitalists'' when they meant Jews, so do many Muslims use the term ''zionists'' to talk about the Jews. An exception is made for the Naturei Karta, an obscure Jewish sect that denies the right to exist for Isreal, other then them all Jews that recognize Isreal's right to exist are zionists.

That is also apparent in the qualifications that are assigned to zionists; these are equal to the manner of how earlier anti semites talked about Jews. During the demonstration in The Hague all anti Jewish prejudices of earlier anti semites were, one by one, declared applicable to the ''zionists'': ''zionists'' controlled the media, world leaders bowed before the power of the ''zionists'' and ''zionists'' only wanted one thing: total war [emphasis mine in regards to the discussion] against everyone that stood against them.

Thus, under the guise of human rights, centuries old conspiracy theories about the Jews are whitewashed and received with war cries by an enthusiastic crowd - and while the police is watching. Where does this fixation on the Jews come from?

In the Islamic way of thinking the Jews went wrong the moment they did not recognize Muhammad as their prophet. From that moment on canonical sources of the Islam describe Jews in almost exclusively negative terms. They are the ones that falsified the word of Allah for their own profit, conceal the thruth and kill their prophets.

Likewise, in theological discourses from the Islamic Middle Ages and modern times there always is a common theme: the Jew is the obvious enemy of Allah and Islam. The comparison with Christian anti semitism is clear. And where 2000 years of Christian anti semetic theology created the public acceptance for the Holocaust, it would be naïve to suppose that 1400 years of Islamic anti semitism would be without consequences. Which it is not.

In a large-scale inquiry by the authoritative PEW institute, in 2010, Muslism from Egypt to Indonesia where asked about their thoughts on Jews. Mind you, this is about Jews, not Israelites. A minimum of 95% of the population of Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan indicated that they thought highly negative about Jews. In Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia this was a minimum of 73%. A striking detail, the only Muslims that were predominantly positive about Jews (54% positive) were Muslims in Isreal.

For those who know the media enviroment and the education system of these countries the results will be no suprise. For years now the state as well as the mosque, both for their own reasons, shift the blame of their everyday problems on the old enemy: the Jews. The illiteracy, the corruption and the poverty these countries are facing are, in the intensly tribal and racist world view of these societies, not the consequence of their own incompetence, but a Jewish plot against the Muslims.

That this way of thinking in international plots and hostile view [this part does not translate well, the idea can be explained by an example, it can be compared to how the West saw the communists in the Cold War, the stereotype so to say] seamlessly connect with the anti semitism of national socialist nature is therefore no coincidence. August Rohling’s pro anti semetic Der Talmudjude, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler’s Mein Kampf are consistently on the bestseller list in the Islamic world.

Where Holocaust deniers like David Irving or Robert Faurisson are treated as part of the criminal layer of society in their own countries, so are they welcomed as heroes in the Islamic world, receiving presidential distinctions, airtime and royal subsidies to continue their ''academic research''. So too did French anti semite Dieudonné, the anti semite that managed to mobilize the Islamic public as well as the Left, receive money from Iran to continue his ''fight against the zionists''.

The simple fact is that the nazis would have been jealous of the way the state and mosque have managed to indoctrinate multiple generations of their population with the most virulent hate of Jews.

It therefore was inevitable, that with the mass migration, Islamic hate of Jews has set foot in Europe. With much effort and opposition the scientific community is withdrawing itself from repressive political correct thinking that Muslims only are the victims of rascism - not offenders.

The first careful steps in research about the size of Islamic hate of Jews in Europe paint a bleak picture: on average, 40% of Muslims have explicit anti semetic beliefs. It is important to note that these are not explicit anti Isreal beliefs but explicit anti Jewish beliefs.

It has to be strongly emphasized: people can be critical about Isreal without being anti semetic. For example in the extremely Isreal critical Sweden only 5% of the non-Muslims can be identified as anti semetic, among Muslims this is 39%. In the Netherlands this is 40% of the Muslims against 9% of non-Muslims.

Research by three Belgian universities show that hatred against Jews amonst Belgian Islamic students is seven times as high as amongst non-Muslims; almost half of questioned Islamic students held classic anti semetic views. And here too many rushed to declare that these findings were the results of Islamic frustrations about the Isreali-Palestinian conflict.

However, professor Elchardus that lead the Belgian research, emphasized that this hate against Jews was not caused by the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, the socioeconomic disadvantage or the educational level, but that: ''the anti semitism amongst the Muslim students is theologically inspired. There is a direct link between being a Muslim and fostering anti semetic feelings.''

A recent German study by research agency Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) among Muslims in six European countries confirms this image: 45% of the Muslims agreed with the anti semetic thesis that Jews could categorically not be trusted, and here too the main cause identified was religion. That is not to say that 40% of the Muslims would want to send the Jews to the gas chamber, but neither did most Germans want this in 1933. The Sharia would, it has to be said, not allow it either.

Yet the acceptation of a certain hostile view [again think of Cold War stereotype views] is leading to ever greater excesses. One in five history teachers in the four big cities [i.e. the Dutch Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht] has occasionally, seventy years after Auschwitz, been unable to discuss the Holocaust, mainly because Islamic students have difficulty with it. With the fighting between Hamas and Isreal the floodgates have opened on social media. There the hatred against Jews is running loose. Muslims that with first and last name, education, employer and etc. are calling for the gassing of Jews or blaming Hitler for not finishing his works has become normal. This lack of shame tells much about the social acceptance of this kind of behaviour. Where these viewpoints and behaviour are commonplace, intimidations, threats and physical violence will naturally follow.

In the meantime, and that is the second problem, a whole generation of Islam researchers, cultural antropologists, human rights organisations and politicians will be aware through there connections with Muslims and the Islamic world how anti semitism was and is occuring. But they knowingly kept quiet, or worse, condoned the problem. Off course, you dont want to alienate your political followers, you dont want to loose that Gulf state funded scholarship for your academic research and if your political focus is the combating of Isreal or the evil West, then the Islamic world is a very generous ally.

Quite a lot of careers are build on ignoring, concealing and covering up the cesspool that is slowly opening. If you keep quiet about it because of opportunism of fear then that is one thing. But that you actively oppose the people dat do have the moral backbone to adress this problem by accusing them of rascism and even endanger them, it testifies of a shocking moral bankruptcy

How often are Bolkestein, Fortuyn, Jansen, Ellian, Hirsi Ali, Van Gogh of Wilders [Dutch politicians] not accused of encouraging rascism? If it concerns hatred against Jews amongst Muslism they are just right. And we havent even discussed the likewise endemic hatred against homosexuals, intolerance of people who think differently or apostates

Off course Muslims in Europe also face rascism. But where a Muslim can walk through a Jewish neighbourhood without fear, a smart Jew with a yarmulke will not try the same in an Islamic neighbourhood in Lyon, Antwerp, Malmö or Berlin. While nowhere in the whole of Europe Muslims at a mosque are beset by Jewish youths, visitors to the synagogue in Paris have to take into account that they will be insulted, beaten, stabbed or shot by Islamic youths. No Islamic school needs to arrange protection because Jews threaten to kill the children. Jewish schools on the other hand have deteriorated into heavily protected bunkers.

This is the reality. You dont need a Toulouse or Brussels to realize that intimidation, rascism and violence of Muslims against Jews is a daily occurence that does not stem from coincidence.

Dutch article:

Spoiler:

Antisemieten als helden ingehaald in moslimwereld

Joodse scholen en synagogen zijn zwaar beveiligde bunkers. Het geweld van moslims tegen Joden is geen toeval, heeft niets te maken met Israël maar komt voort uit eeuwenlang zorgvuldig gekweekte Jodenhaat, aldus David Suurland.

David Suurland
In maart 2012 drong de 23-jarige Mohammed Merah gewapend met een geweer en een zorgvuldig gekweekte haat voor Joden in het Franse Toulouse een Joodse basisschool binnen. Daar schoot hij een rabbijn en drie kinderen dood. De zevenjarige Myriam Monsonego tilde hij aan het haar omhoog, waarna hij een geweer op haar slaap zette en haar door het hoofd schoot.

Als deze Jodenjacht, want iets anders was het niet, al geen teken aan de wand was, waren de reacties dat wel. Meteen nadat de identiteit van Merah bekend was geworden, werd op Facebook een groep opgericht waar mensen hun steun konden betuigen – aan de dader welteverstaan, niet aan de slachtoffers.

Binnen enkele uren hadden tweeduizend Franse moslims hun steun aan broeder Merah betuigd. Alleen omdat de Franse autoriteiten Facebook dwongen deze groep te sluiten, werden dat er niet veel meer. Buurtgenoten feliciteerden de moeder van Merah met de heldendaad van haar zoon en als postume steunbetuiging aan Merah schoot in de eerste tien dagen na de aanslag in heel Frankrijk het aantal antisemitische incidenten met 40 procent omhoog. De Joodse school werd bedolven onder telefoontjes en mailtjes waarin werd gedreigd het werk van Merah af te maken.

Aanslagen zoals in Toulouse, Brussel of de bestorming van twee synagoges in Parijs staan niet op zichzelf. Ze zijn het logisch gevolg van een breed gedragen en diep in de islamitische gemeenschap verankerde Jodenhaat. In bijna alle grote Europese steden met een aanzienlijke islamitische populatie hebben Joden te kampen met structurele intimidaties, bedreigingen en geweldpleging vanuit voornamelijk islamitische hoek. Waar komt die haat vandaan?

Vele moslims haten volgens eigen zeggen Joden niet; ze reageren slechts op het onrecht dat de Palestijnen wordt aangedaan. Dit excuus van morele verontwaardiging is volstrekt ongeloofwaardig. Waar waren zij toen andere moslims onrecht werd aangedaan? De moordpartijen van Saddam Hoessein, ISIS of al-Qaeda in Irak, de 170.000 doden en miljoenen vluchtelingen in Syrië; de Arabische afslachting van 200.000 zwarte moslims in Darfur hebben niet één noemenswaardige demonstratie op het Spuiplein weten te veroorzaken. Honderd dode Palestijnen daarentegen zijn een met de Holocaust te vergelijken ‘genocide’ die het rechtvaardigheidsgevoel van de islamitische ziel tot op het bot weet te krenken. Althans, zo wil men doen geloven.

Daarbij zou het gaan om een ‘strijd tegen het zionisme’. Maar dat is een oude en weinig zeggende semantische truc. Net zoals de nazi’s met de term ‘communisten’ vooral Joden op het oog hadden, en de communisten met de term ‘kapitalisten’ het ook over Joden hadden, zo hebben vele moslims het met de term ‘zionisten’ ook over Joden. Er wordt een uitzondering gemaakt voor de Naturei Karta, een obscure Joodse sekte die het bestaansrecht van Israël ontkent, maar verder zijn alle Joden die het bestaansrecht van Israël erkennen zionisten.

Dat blijkt ook uit de kwalificaties die zionisten worden toebedeeld; deze zijn gelijk aan de wijze waarop eerdere antisemieten het over Joden hadden. Tijdens de demonstratie in Den Haag werden alle anti-Joodse vooroordelen van eerdere antisemieten een voor een op de ‘zionisten’ van toepassing verklaard: ‘zionisten’ controleren de media, wereldleiders buigen voor de macht van de ‘zionisten’ en ‘zionisten’ willen slechts één ding: de totale oorlog aan iedereen die tegen hen is.

Zo worden onder het mom van mensenrechten eeuwenoude complottheorieën over Joden witgewassen en door een enthousiaste menigte met strijdkreten ontvangen – en de politie kijkt toe. Waar komt die fixatie op de Joden eigenlijk vandaan?

In de islamitische denkwereld gaat het voor de Joden fout op het moment dat zij Mohammed niet erkennen als profeet. Vanaf dat moment beschrijven de canonieke bronnen van de islam de Joden vrijwel uitsluitend in negatieve termen. Zij zijn het die voor eigen gewin bewust het woord van Allah hebben vervalst, de waarheid verhullen, hun profeten vermoorden.

Ook in de theologische verhandelingen van de islamitische middeleeuwen en moderne tijd loopt een rode draad: de Jood is de vanzelfsprekende vijand van Allah en de islam. De vergelijking met het christelijk antisemitisme is evident. En daar waar 2000 jaar christelijk antisemitische theologie het maatschappelijk draagvlak voor de Holocaust creëerde, zou het naïef zijn te veronderstellen dat 1400 jaar islamitisch antisemitisme zonder gevolgen zou zijn. Dat is het dan ook niet.

In een grootschalig onderzoek van het gezaghebbende PEW instituut uit 2010 werd aan moslims van Egypte tot aan Indonesië gevraagd hoe zij dachten over Joden. Let wel het gaat hier om Joden, niet om Israëliërs. Minimaal 95 procent van de bevolking van Egypte, Libanon en Jordanië gaf aan zeer negatief over Joden te denken. In Turkije, Pakistan en Indonesië was dit minimaal 73 procent. Saillant detail, de enige moslims die overwegend positief over Joden dachten (54 procent positief) waren de moslims in Israël.

Voor wie het medialandschap en onderwijssysteem in deze landen kent, zijn deze uitslagen geen verrassing. Sinds jaar en dag wentelen zowel de staat als de moskee, beide om eigen redenen, de problemen van alledag af op de aloude vijand: de Joden. Het analfabetisme, de corruptie en de armoede waar deze landen mee kampen, zijn in het intens tribale en racistische wereldbeeld van deze samenlevingen niet het gevolg van de eigen incompetentie, maar van een Joods wereldcomplot tegen de moslims.

Dat dit denken in termen van internationale complotten en absolute vijandsbeelden naadloos aansluit bij het antisemitisme van nationaal-socialistische aard is dan ook geen toeval. August Rohling’s proto-antisemitische Der Talmudjude, de Protocollen van de Wijzen van Zion en Hitler’s Mein Kampf staan in de islamitische wereld steevast in de top van de bestsellerlijst.

Daar waar Holocaustontkenners zoals David Irving of Robert Faurisson in eigen land tot de criminele onderlaag van de maatschappij worden gerekend, worden zij in de islamitische wereld als helden verwelkomd, krijgen ze presidentiële onderscheidingen, zendtijd en royale subsidies om hun ‘academisch onderzoek’ voort te kunnen zetten. Ook de Franse antisemiet Dieudonné, die het antisemitisme onder zowel links als islamitisch publiek wist te mobiliseren, kreeg geld van Iran om zijn ‘strijd tegen de zionisten’ voort te zetten.

Het simpele feit is dat de nazi’s jaloers zouden zijn op de wijze waarop zowel de staat als de moskee meerdere generaties van de bevolking met de meest virulente Jodenhaat hebben weten te indoctrineren.

Het kon dan ook niet uitblijven: met de massale immigratie heeft de islamitische Jodenhaat voet aan wal in Europa gezet. Met veel moeite en tegenwerking onttrekt de wetenschap zich aan een repressief politiek correct denken dat moslims alleen maar slachtoffers van racisme zouden zijn - en geen daders.

De eerste voorzichtige stappen in het onderzoek naar de omvang van islamitische Jodenhaat in Europa schetsen een inktzwart beeld: gemiddeld houdt ruim 40 procent van de moslims er uitdrukkelijk antisemitische overtuigingen op na. Daarbij gaat het expliciet niet om anti-Israëlische maar om anti-Joodse meningen.

Het moet nadrukkelijk worden gesteld: men kan zonder enig probleem kritisch zijn op Israël zonder een antisemiet te zijn. Zo wordt in het uiterst Israël kritische Zweden slechts 5 procent van de niet-moslims als antisemiet aangemerkt, onder moslims is dat 39 procent. In Nederland is het 40 procent van de moslims tegen 9 procent van de niet-islamitische bevolking.

Onderzoek door drie Belgische universiteiten toont aan dat Jodenhaat onder Belgische islamitische studenten zeven keer zo hoog was als die onder niet-moslims; bijna de helft van alle ondervraagde islamitische studenten hield er klassiek antisemitische denkbeelden op na. En ook hier haastten velen zich om deze bevindingen exclusief te wijten aan islamitische frustraties over het Israëlisch-Palestijns conflict.

Echter, professor Elchardus die het Belgisch onderzoek leidde, benadrukte dat deze Jodenhaat niet wordt veroorzaakt door het Israëlisch-Palestijns conflict, de sociaal-economische achterstand of het opleidingsniveau, maar dat „het antisemitisme bij die moslimleerlingen theologisch is geïnspireerd. Er is een rechtstreeks verband tussen moslim zijn en antisemitische gevoelens koesteren”.

Een recent Duits onderzoek door onderzoeksbureau Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) onder moslims in zes Europese landen bevestigde dit beeld: 45 procent van de moslims was het eens met de antisemitische stelling dat Joden categoriaal niet konden worden vertrouwd, en ook hier werd als hoofdoorzaak de religie aangewezen. Dat wil niet zeggen dat 40 procent van de moslims de Joden het liefst de gaskamer in zou sturen, maar dat wilden de meeste Duitsers in 1933 ook niet. De sharia zou dat overigens, het moet gezegd, ook niet toelaten.

Toch leidt de acceptatie van een bepaald vijandbeeld tot steeds grotere excessen. Een op de vijf geschiedenisdocenten in de vier grote steden heeft, zeventig jaarna Auschwitz, weleens de Holocaust niet of nauwelijks ter sprake kunnen brengen, omdat vooral islamitische leerlingen er moeite mee hebben. Met de gevechten tussen Hamas en Israël is het hek van de dam op de sociale media. Daar heeft Jodenhaat nu de vrije loop. Moslims die met voor- en achternaam, opleiding, werkgever en al oproepen tot het vergassen van Joden of Hitler verwijten zijn werk niet te hebben afgemaakt, zijn daar normaal geworden. Dat gebrek aan schaamte zegt veel over de mate van sociale acceptatie van dit soort gedrag. Daar waar dit soort gedachten en gedragingen gemeengoed zijn, volgen de intimidaties, bedreigingen en uiteindelijk fysiek geweld vanzelf.

Inmiddels, en dat is een tweede probleem, moet een hele generatie aan islamwetenschappers, cultureel antropologen, mensenrechtenorganisaties en politici door hun banden met moslims en de islamitische wereld weten hoe zeer het antisemitisme daar speelde en speelt. Maar zij hebben bewust hun mond gehouden of, nog erger, het probleem vergoelijkt. Natuurlijk, je wilt je politieke achterban niet van je vervreemden, je wilt die door een Golfstaat betaalde beurs voor je academisch onderzoek niet verliezen en als je politieke focus op het bestrijden van Israël of het kwaadaardige Westen ligt, dan is de islamitische wereld een wel heel gulle medestander.

Heel wat carrières zijn gebouwd op het negeren, verzwijgen en bedekken van de beerput die nu langzaam opengaat. Dat je daarbij je mond houdt uit opportunisme of angst is één ding. Maar dat je de mensen die wél de morele ruggengraat hebben om dit probleem aan te kaarten actief tegenwerkt, van racisme beschuldigt en daarmee zelfs in gevaar brengt, getuigt van een stuitend moreel failliet.

Hoe vaak zijn Bolkestein, Fortuyn, Jansen, Ellian, Hirsi Ali, Van Gogh of Wilders niet beticht van het aanzetten tot racisme? Als het gaat om Jodenhaat onder moslims hadden zij gewoon gelijk. En dan hebben we het nog niet eens gehad over de eveneens endemische homohaat, intolerantie voor andersdenkenden of afvalligen.

Natuurlijk hebben moslims in Europa ook te maken met racisme. Maar daar waar een moslim zonder enige angst door een Joodse wijk kan lopen, zal een verstandige jood met een keppeltje dat niet proberen in een islamitische wijk in Lyon, Antwerpen, Malmö of Berlijn. Terwijl er in heel Europa nergens moslims bij de moskee worden belaagd door opgeschoten joodse jongeren, moeten synagogebezoekers in Parijs er rekening mee houden dat ze door islamitische jonge mannen worden uitgescholden, in elkaar geslagen, neergestoken of beschoten. Geen enkele islamitische school moet beveiliging regelen omdat Joden dreigen de kinderen te vermoorden. Joodse scholen daarentegen zijn verworden tot zwaar beveiligde bunkers.

Dat is de realiteit. Je hebt geen Toulouse of Brussel nodig om te beseffen dat intimidatie, racisme en geweld van moslims tegen Joden een dagelijks fenomeen is dat niet voorkomt uit toeval.

David Suurland is cum laude gepromoveerd op een vergelijking tussen het nazisme, communisme en islamisme aan de Universiteit van Leiden. Hij werkt momenteel aan de handelsversie van zijn proefschrift.

Dit artikel is verschenen in het NRC Handelsblad van zaterdag 19 juli 2014 op pagina 2 & 3

UNRWA says it gave 20 missiles found in Gaza school to ‘local authorities’ that are under the ‘government of national consensus in Ramallah’

A “The rockets were passed on to the government authorities in Gaza, which is Hamas. In other words, UNRWA handed to Hamas rockets that could well be shot at Israel,” a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel.

A different senior official said UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, charged with overseeing humanitarian efforts in Gaza, has been suffering from “battered-wife syndrome” for years and currently “attempts to ingratiate itself with Hamas.”

A spokesperson for UNRWA said the organization gave the rockets to “local authorities,” which answer to the Hamas-backed unity government led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. UNRWA pledged to fully investigate the incident once the fighting stops and keep all relevant parties informed, but refused to release any photos of the weapons.

“According to longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide, incidents involving unexploded ordnance that could endanger beneficiaries and staff are referred to the local authorities,” UNRWA’s director of advocacy and strategic communications, Christopher Gunness, told The Times of Israel Sunday.

“Immediately after the discovery of the rockets, UNRWA proactively informed the relevant parties and successfully took all necessary measures for the removal of the objects in order to preserve the safety and security of the school. Local authorities fall under the government of national consensus in Ramallah. They pledged to pass a message to all parties not to violate UNRWA neutrality.”

A Western diplomat familiar with the incident said there is “absolutely no evidence” that UNRWA handed the rockets to Hamas. Rather, the diplomat suggested, the authorities who collected the rockets are under the direct authority of the Palestinian unity government, “which Hamas has left and which many in Hamas are openly hostile to. The key point is that the weapons were handed over to people who are not answerable to Hamas,” the diplomat said, referring to the fact that the unity government, not Hamas, is officially the ruling power in Gaza.

On Wednesday, UNRWA officials found some 20 missiles in a vacant school. A day later it released a statement strongly condemning “the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law,” the statement read.

UNRWA immediately convened an inquiry to investigate the incident, Gunness said. “All existing evidence will be handed over by UNRWA to the investigation, which can commence as soon as hostilities in Gaza are over.”

Israel has requested the UN release photos of the rockets. Officials plan to disseminate these images to bolster its assertion that Hamas is hiding missiles in schools, diplomatic sources said Friday.

But UNRWA is currently refusing to disclose any photos, arguing that “any photographic material” is evidence needed for UNRWA’s evidence. “We will keep relevant players informed about the investigation,” Gunness said.

UNRWA has “strong, established procedures to maintain the neutrality of all its premises, including a strict no-weapons policy and routine inspections of its installations, to ensure they are only used for humanitarian purposes,” he added.

In Jerusalem, such assertions are rejected, even ridiculed. “Time and again, over the years, UNRWA is being abused by gunmen from different terrorist factions who are using UN facilities to stockpile weapons, to fire rockets from, to steal UNRWA humanitarian equipment and to cause damage and fire in UNRWA’s hangars,” a senior Foreign Ministry official told The Times of Israel.

“Against all evidence, UNRWA refuses to acknowledge reality and pathetically attempts to ingratiate itself with Hamas, pretending that nothing serious has happened,” the senior official said. “This is a classic case of beaten-wife syndrome, which we have been witnessing for years from UNRWA. The people of Gaza, and indeed taxpayers from countries who contributive to UNRWA’s budget — including Israel — deserve better.”

Israel plans to raise this issue with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is expected to arrive in Israel on Tuesday.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I can definitely see the problem, I'm not quite sure what the local UN staff were supposed to do. They're aid workers.

They don't have the means to deal with the rockets, they're not getting foreign military/ordnance disposal people in there, they're *certainly* not going to be able to get them over to the Israeli's, they don't want them to remain in their facility, they wouldn't have the means to keep Hamas from taking them if they wanted to take them back, it's hard to see that they really had any other choice.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I can definitely see the problem, I'm not quite sure what the local UN staff were supposed to do. They're aid workers.

They don't have the means to deal with the rockets, they're not getting foreign military/ordnance disposal people in there, they're *certainly* not going to be able to get them over to the Israeli's, they don't want them to remain in their facility, they wouldn't have the means to keep Hamas from taking them if they wanted to take them back, it's hard to see that they really had any other choice.

Fire them at the nearest hospital.

But anyway, I agree, if they hadn't handed them over they probably would've just endangered themselves.

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I can definitely see the problem, I'm not quite sure what the local UN staff were supposed to do. They're aid workers.

They don't have the means to deal with the rockets, they're not getting foreign military/ordnance disposal people in there, they're *certainly* not going to be able to get them over to the Israeli's, they don't want them to remain in their facility, they wouldn't have the means to keep Hamas from taking them if they wanted to take them back, it's hard to see that they really had any other choice.

sirlynchmob wrote:
and that article just highlights the warcrimes israel is committing.

sirlynchmob wrote:
No Iraq invaded Kuwait just like Israel invaded Palestine.

sirlynchmob wrote:
you seem to think that when you've been invaded you're somehow the aggressor and you should just lie down and accept your occupation.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel invaded Palestine and you think Palestine shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from an invading country. And because Israel invaded, Hamas started launching the rockets. As Israel is the occupying force all they have to do is end their occupation. The UN stepped in for Kuwait and the US launched hundreds of rockets at Iraq, I guess the US was just provoking a conflict and Iraq should have invaded again. Germany invaded and occupied France, it's a direct parallel to what is happening in Palestine.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Almost 80 percent of those killed as a result of the Israeli bombing of Gaza are civilians, the United Nations said in a report. They must really suck at warning the general population as 80% almost seems like they are being deliberately targeted.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I can definitely see the problem, I'm not quite sure what the local UN staff were supposed to do. They're aid workers.

They don't have the means to deal with the rockets, they're not getting foreign military/ordnance disposal people in there, they're *certainly* not going to be able to get them over to the Israeli's, they don't want them to remain in their facility, they wouldn't have the means to keep Hamas from taking them if they wanted to take them back, it's hard to see that they really had any other choice.

I would imagine, a neutral body looking to secure the safety of these people would work... such an international agency. One might suppose that any UNRWA workers who are on the ground in Gaza are familiar with Hamas and would realize that they were essentially fueling another round of the attacks which we’re all ostensibly seeking to shut down, wouldn’t they? Unless there's a subliminal approval in using these rockets against Israel.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I can definitely see the problem, I'm not quite sure what the local UN staff were supposed to do. They're aid workers.

They don't have the means to deal with the rockets, they're not getting foreign military/ordnance disposal people in there, they're *certainly* not going to be able to get them over to the Israeli's, they don't want them to remain in their facility, they wouldn't have the means to keep Hamas from taking them if they wanted to take them back, it's hard to see that they really had any other choice.

I would imagine, a neutral body looking to secure the safety of these people would work... such an international agency. One might suppose that any UNRWA workers who are on the ground in Gaza are familiar with Hamas and would realize that they were essentially fueling another round of the attacks which we’re all ostensibly seeking to shut down, wouldn’t they? Unless there's a subliminal approval in using these rockets against Israel.

again, you're talking about aid workers who do stuff like run schools, deliver mattresses, distribute food, and do vaccinations. They don't have ordnance disposal experts on hand nor the relevant equipment, nor are they going to be able to get any in in the current situation, and any time Hamas wanted those rockets back, they wouldn't be able to stop them. At least once they're out of there the Israeli's can target the rockets without blowing up a school.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
and that article just highlights the warcrimes israel is committing.

It is interesting that evidence of following international law is somehow proof of war crimes.

sirlynchmob wrote:
No Iraq invaded Kuwait just like Israel invaded Palestine.

Except that Kuwait didn't launch hundreds of rockets at Iraq, and want to claim all of Iraq land. Nor did they send in suicide bombers. Or any other countless actual differences between the two examples you are hopelessly trying to compare.

sirlynchmob wrote:
you seem to think that when you've been invaded you're somehow the aggressor and you should just lie down and accept your occupation.

That's a fantastic strawman that you are attempting to erect there.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel invaded Palestine and you think Palestine shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from an invading country. And because Israel invaded, Hamas started launching the rockets. As Israel is the occupying force all they have to do is end their occupation. The UN stepped in for Kuwait and the US launched hundreds of rockets at Iraq, I guess the US was just provoking a conflict and Iraq should have invaded again. Germany invaded and occupied France, it's a direct parallel to what is happening in Palestine.

Except I never said that

sirlynchmob wrote:
Almost 80 percent of those killed as a result of the Israeli bombing of Gaza are civilians, the United Nations said in a report. They must really suck at warning the general population as 80% almost seems like they are being deliberately targeted.

They are being deliberately targeted. If you ignore all the evidence that has been provided to date, and thus making any actual discussion almost impossible as you have been doing thus far.

I can see that you have your point of view, entrenched as it is, and no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise. It has been interesting talking with you.

“We don’t need statements of regret from Israel,” Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch said in a Twitter message. We need investigation and an end to illegal targeting.”

 whembly wrote:

I get it... doesn't make it any less face-palm worthy.

You'd think that the UNRWA would reach out to other neutral agencies to confiscate these weapons. If they want to protect the people they're helping, they shouldn't actively return those weapons back to the Hamas. Otherwise, they're just making excuses.

sirlynchmob wrote:
They bombed a hospital that is a war crime. I don't know why you can accept that. The hospital had no rockets, nor was it being used for any military purpose. As that is against the Geneva convention and it is a war crime. Saying hey were going to bomb your hospital because we want to, is not following international law. And that's just one of the articles they are in violation of.

Yesterday saw Israel come in for particular criticism after the al-Wafa hospital, which cares for patients suffering from brain and spine trauma, was damaged by the Israeli air offensive.

Asked if Israel “has the right to defend itself by bombing hospitals”, Dermer said: “Actually, if you turn your hospital into a command post & missile launching site you do. But Israel hasn't.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the similarities between Kuwait and Palestine is that they were both invaded and occupied by a foreign power. I know you think this conflict only started a few days ago, but the big difference is Palestine has been occupied since 1967, where Kuwait was sent aid and others fired the rockets on Kuwaits behalf. Palestine is not trying to claim Israel, they are trying to regain their country. Kuwait was occupied and missiles got fired into Iraq, now if that had dragged on for 47 years, do you think they might still be firing rockets at the country that invaded them?

sirlynchmob wrote:
You've been stating Palestine started this by shooting rockets into israel, well what should an occupied country do? surrender? give up?

sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel started the war when they invaded and occupied Palestine back in 1967. As an occupying force they have limits placed on them on what actions they can take against the palestines. And they are violating it, hence they are committing war crimes.

sirlynchmob wrote:
If Israel wants peace, they should end their occupation and pull out of the occupied territories. I'm ignoring nothing, you're ignoring the 47 years prior to this.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You probably watch 'Red Dawn' and think the wolverines are the bad guys. How dare they fight back, see they shot the troops of the invading army that occupied their home. See the wolverines started it, the invading army had no choice but to line up the townspeople and shoot them.

sirlynchmob wrote:

“We don’t need statements of regret from Israel,” Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch said in a Twitter message. We need investigation and an end to illegal targeting.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-strip.html?_r=0

HRW has been accused of bias against the state of Israel[29] of issuing one-sided and hostile reports attacking Israel[30] and of having an anti-Israel agenda[26][31] by general circulation newspapers, the Israeli government and supporters of Israel. Political Science Professor and former consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Gerald M. Steinberg of Bar Ilan University, head of NGO Monitor, a pro-Israel NGO[32] accused HRW of having "a strong anti-Israel bias from the beginning".[33] He claimed their reports were based primarily on "Palestinian eyewitness testimony" — testimony that is "not accurate, objective or credible but serves the political goal of indicting Israel".[34] According to David Bernstein HRW is "maniacally anti-Israel".[35] Mark Regev (spokesman for Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu) has said that "We discovered during the Gaza operation and the Second Lebanon War that these organizations come in with a very strong agenda, and because they claim to have some kind of halo around them, they receive a status that they don't deserve," in reference to HRW's and Amnesty International’s allegations of human rights violations by Israeli forces during those conflicts.[36]
. . .
According to The Times, "most" of the Middle East department staff of Human Rights Watch "have activist backgrounds — it was typical that one newly hired researcher came to HRW from the extremist anti-Israel publication Electronic Intifada — unlikely to reassure anyone who thinks that human-rights organizations should be non-partisan."[3]

In November 2012, David Feith, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said that there has been some "bitter debate" within HRW as to whether Iran's call for annihilation of Israel is a violation of human rights. HRW Vice Chair Sid Sheinberg wrote that doing nothing while Ahmadinejad wants to "kill Jews and annihilate Israel...is a position unworthy of our great organization." But Executive Director Ken Roth says that "Tehran isn't inciting genocide and claims to the contrary are part of an effort to beat the war drums against Iran."[43]
. . .
Marc Garlasco, a senior investigator for HRW, has been criticized for being an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. Emma Daly confirmed in March 2010 that Garlasco resigned from Human Rights Watch in February 2010, and offered no elaboration. “He has written a book, about Nazi-era medals. In one post he wrote: "That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!" [44][45][46] Commenting on allegations concerning Garlasco in the media, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policy director said on September 9, 2009 that Human Rights Watch's employment of "a man who trades and collects Nazi memorabilia" as its senior military expert is a "new low". HRW issued a rebuttal to the allegations which stated that the "accusation is demonstrably false and fits into a campaign to deflect attention from Human Rights Watch's rigorous and detailed reporting on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by the Israeli government." noting that Garlasco, "has never held or expressed Nazi or anti-Semitic views."[47]

Helena Cobban, a fellow Middle East analyst of the Human Rights Watch Middle East advisory board, noted that Garlasco engaged with "people who clearly do seem to be Nazi sympathizers," something she called "extremely disturbing," [48]
. . .
In November 2010, Bernstein gave the Shirley and Leonard Goldstein Lecture on Human Rights at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.[65] During this lecture, he accused HRW of "fault[ing] Israel as the principal offender" in theIsrael-Palestine conflict and suggested that groups like HRW were responsible for polarization on university campuses.

In December 2010, Jennifer Rubin, writing in her Washington Post blog, described HRW as "an anti-Israel group masquerading as one devoted to human rights".[66]

In January 2012, New Europe quoted an NGO Monitor report which said that HRW gives "disproportionate attention" to 'Israel and the Occupied Territories' which received "more attention in 2011 than Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq." The article also said that the HRW reports continued to show "bias on Israel," and that "all op-eds published on the Arab-Israeli conflict in major media focused on allegations against Israel."[4]

Orlando Radice, writing in the Jewish British newspaper, The JC, said, regarding an interview with HRW director Ken Roth, that "this was less of an interview than an exercise in denial, obfuscation and plain old censorship."[67]

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel started the war when they invaded and occupied Palestine back in 1967. As an occupying force they have limits placed on them on what actions they can take against the palestines. And they are violating it, hence they are committing war crimes.

You mean the Six Day War when Arab countries attempted to wipe Israel from the map because they were the wrong religion?

sirlynchmob wrote:
If Israel wants peace, they should end their occupation and pull out of the occupied territories. I'm ignoring nothing, you're ignoring the 47 years prior to this.

Because that worked out so well for them before....

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/14/3459100/timeline-how-war-returned-to-gaza/

June 12 Three Israeli teens — Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Fraenkel, and Gilad Shaer — attempt hitchhike back to their homes. All three go missing.

June 14 As the sweep continues, it will eventually see the detention of nearly 300 Palestinians,

During the 18-day operation in the West Bank, according to a military statement, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians — 335 of them affiliated with Hamas — searched 2,218 locations and confiscated about $350,000. They also killed six Palestinians who confronted them, the latest a wanted man who threw a grenade as they approached Tuesday morning in Jenin.

June 15 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells the press that the kidnapping was carried out by Hamas.

June 23 With the boys still missing, the search continues throughout the West Bank. Netanyahu repeats to NPR that the Israeli government has proof that Hamas carried out the kidnapping, while still not offering evidence of the direct connection to Hamas’ leadership.

As retribution, the Israeli Defense Forces will later demolish the homes of both suspects’ families, a practice it had let lapse since 2005.

sirlynchmob wrote:
and how can you claim it hasn't worked before when they've never stopped occupying those territories.

sirlynchmob wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/14/3459100/timeline-how-war-returned-to-gaza/

June 12 Three Israeli teens — Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Fraenkel, and Gilad Shaer — attempt hitchhike back to their homes. All three go missing.

June 14 As the sweep continues, it will eventually see the detention of nearly 300 Palestinians,

During the 18-day operation in the West Bank, according to a military statement, Israeli soldiers arrested 419 Palestinians — 335 of them affiliated with Hamas — searched 2,218 locations and confiscated about $350,000. They also killed six Palestinians who confronted them, the latest a wanted man who threw a grenade as they approached Tuesday morning in Jenin.

June 15 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells the press that the kidnapping was carried out by Hamas.

June 23 With the boys still missing, the search continues throughout the West Bank. Netanyahu repeats to NPR that the Israeli government has proof that Hamas carried out the kidnapping, while still not offering evidence of the direct connection to Hamas’ leadership.

As retribution, the Israeli Defense Forces will later demolish the homes of both suspects’ families, a practice it had let lapse since 2005.

There was no court case for the suspects, they were arrested

A senior employee of the US think tank Center for American Progress (CAP) appears to have admitted in an e-mail sent from his CAP account that a blogger for the policy organization used anti-Semitic language to attack supporters of the Jewish state.

CAP advises the Democratic Party on Middle East policy and is an important source of ideas for the Obama administration.

RELATED:
NGOs slam ‘anti-Semitic’ US think tank comments
Bloggers drag US think tank into scandal

The Jerusalem Post last week obtained the first CAP acknowledgment of Jew-hatred stemming from a group of Mideast bloggers affiliated with CAP’s ThinkProgress website.

In the e-mail that the Post obtained exclusively from the CAP account of Faiz Shakir, who serves as editor-in-chief of the ThinkProgress.org website and is a vice president at CAP, he wrote, “Yes, I agree ‘Israel Firster’ is terrible, anti-Semitic language. And that’s why that language no longer exists on Zaid’s personal twitter feed, because he also knows and understands the implications.”

Zaid Jilani wrote on his Twitter account, where he identifies himself as a “Reporter-Blogger for ThinkProgress,” that “...Obama is still beloved by Israel-firsters and getting lots of their $$.”

The e-mail recognizing the anti-Semitism of a CAP blogger was sent from FShakir@americanprogress.org in December.

US-Jewish and Israeli NGOs accused a faction of ThinkProgress bloggers that month of stoking modern anti-Semitism. The anti-Israel scandal saw two CAP writers, Jilani and Ali Gharib, issue apologies for asserting that American Jews and a non-Jewish Republican senator serve the interests of the Israeli government over the security of the United States.

Speaking with the Post from Washington on Thursday, Shakir declined to comment on the e-mail from his account.

He did not respond to a followup Post e-mail sent on Friday.

In a lengthy article on Friday on the Daily Beast news website, Ken Gude, the managing director of CAP’s National Security and International Policy Program, denied any anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism at CAP. He told the Daily Beast that the allegations were “wildly unfair” and “flatly untrue.”

The Post sent an e-mail to Gude on Friday citing the quote in question from the email that had been sent from Shakir’s account. He did not respond to the Post e-mail or to a follow-up telephone query.

Critics accuse CAP of failing to combat rising anti-Israel sentiment among a group of bloggers who write about the Middle East and have created an anti-Jewish state environment at the mainstream policy organization. The e-mail conceding anti-Semitism at ThinkProgress underscores an internal rift at the think tank.

CAP bloggers have attacked their critics. The ThinkProgress blogger Ben Armbruster wrote an article last month titled “The Secret, Coordinated Effort To Smear ThinkProgress As Anti-Semitic And Anti-Israel.”

He authored a second blog entry, “TAKE ACTION: Tell The Washington Post To Retract Jen Rubin’s Charge That ThinkProgress Is ‘Anti-Semitic.’” Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, told the Post last week, “Instead of playing the victim, CAP has an obligation to implement concrete guidelines demonstrating that this language is unacceptable and that it will not be used by CAP employees in the future.”

When asked about NGO Monitor’s criticism of CAP and the Shakir e-mail account statement, Andrea Purse, a CAP spokeswoman, declined to comment. She wrote the Post last week that the articles in the Post were not helping “to defeat anti-Semitism.

The attacks and their repetition here do a disservice to all of us who fight for a strong US-Israel relationship.”

In an e-mail to the Post last week, Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, wrote, “The prominence of CAP in the Obama administration has been recognized by news outlets like Time and Bloomberg News, both of which describe the think tank as the president’s ‘Ideas Factory.’ The fact that CAP has staffers who disseminate this kind of virulent, poisonous anti-Israel material points to a serious problem – that there is a strain of hostility toward Israel running through elements of the mainstream Democratic Party.”

Matt Duss, director for the Middle East at CAP, compared Israel’s security policies to the racist “segregated South” in the United States. Duss declined to respond to queries about this statement on the ThinkProgress website. The disclosure of the e-mail from Shakir’s account comes after a series of dire developments for CAP’s reputation, culminating in sharp criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Center – all of which slammed CAP for promoting hatred of Jews and Israel.

Brooks said that “Liberals and Democrats who value their party’s reputation regarding national security and the US-Israel alliance have a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, it appears that elements who would irreparably damage that reputation have a foothold within an important mainstream Democratic institution.”

David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, wrote to the Post that “The words of these individuals [the bloggers] are deeply disturbing, and they were right to apologize for their remarks. However those who have not apologized for their remarks include Rep. Allen West (R-FL), who invoked Joseph Goebbels to attack Democrats in December, and far too many others on the right who have dragged abusive Holocaust rhetoric into our political discourse in recent years.”

Harris said, “In truth, neither the Left nor the Right has a monopoly on rhetoric that American Jews rightly find disturbing – although through talk radio, presidential candidates and members of Congress, the Right seems to be trying to corner the market.”

Steinberg said “it is highly unfortunate when individuals and organizations play politics with anti-Semitic rhetoric.

“Pointing fingers and saying that others are more anti- Semitic is a sad attempt to distract from one’s own errors. This rhetoric adds to the destructive impact, and does nothing to remove this language from the public discourse.”

sirlynchmob wrote:
and their families killed without anyone ever being convicted of a crime. They have a practice of targeting and killing innocent family members.

sirlynchmob wrote:
they pillage $350,000

sirlynchmob wrote:
The International Court of Justice also says these settlements are illegal in a 2004.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And we can take the moral high ground that they good guys should have, and refrain from bombing their families before they're sentenced.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Israel started the war when they invaded and occupied Palestine back in 1967. As an occupying force they have limits placed on them on what actions they can take against the palestines. And they are violating it, hence they are committing war crimes.

You mean the Six Day War when Arab countries attempted to wipe Israel from the map because they were the wrong religion?

sirlynchmob wrote:
If Israel wants peace, they should end their occupation and pull out of the occupied territories. I'm ignoring nothing, you're ignoring the 47 years prior to this.

Because that worked out so well for them before....

Yes the 6 day war when they decided since they were attacked, they might as well occupy those territories.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
and how can you claim it hasn't worked before when they've never stopped occupying those territories.

When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and received rocket fire from the area the same day that is a good indication that Israel should be wary

sirlynchmob wrote:
and their families killed without anyone ever being convicted of a crime. They have a practice of targeting and killing innocent family members.

So the family members of the suspects were all killed simply for being related to the suspects? The link you provided said nothing of the sort, and I'd be curious as to where you got this

sirlynchmob wrote:
they pillage $350,000

And where did you pull this claim from?

sirlynchmob wrote:
The International Court of Justice also says these settlements are illegal in a 2004.

In an non-binding advisory opinion that has no legal force, nor adjudicated on the matter

sirlynchmob wrote:
And we can take the moral high ground that they good guys should have, and refrain from bombing their families before they're sentenced.

Except the families of the accused are not being targeted, unless those family members are also Hamas members, or are engaged in hostility against Israel.
Maybe Hamas could take the moral high ground too and not target civilians

 CptJake wrote:
How does a higher death toll = moral high ground?

That makes zero sense.

 Hulksmash wrote:
You guys are still actually talking to Sirlynchmob? What the heck, I will too:

@Sirlynchmob

If the Canadian Government lauched rockets at the US what do you think would happen? Regardless of actual casualties taken by the US from said rockets.

What if Mexico did it?

Israel has committed, at this time, no war crimes. Wanna know why? Because of irrational people like you who would probably blame and unarmed israeli for being shot in the face by a palestinian in Israel. They have to tip-toe far more than someone like the US or Russia. They don't have the flex to shrug it off.

Don't poke the bear unless you're ready for the response.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
How does a higher death toll = moral high ground?

That makes zero sense.

It's more because they are being occupied by a foreign power and are fighting for their freedom. Fighting for your freedom and your country is usually the moral thing to do.

Even the US says Surrender is always dishonorable and never allowed. (see code of conduct)

If Israel (the aggressors) want peace all they have to do is give up their occupation of all territories. That would be the Moral thing for them to do. Everything they've done so far is directly against the Geneva convention which they signed and should therefore honor. so Israel is dishonorable and immoral based on their current actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
You guys are still actually talking to Sirlynchmob? What the heck, I will too:

@Sirlynchmob

If the Canadian Government lauched rockets at the US what do you think would happen? Regardless of actual casualties taken by the US from said rockets.

What if Mexico did it?

Israel has committed, at this time, no war crimes. Wanna know why? Because of irrational people like you who would probably blame and unarmed israeli for being shot in the face by a palestinian in Israel. They have to tip-toe far more than someone like the US or Russia. They don't have the flex to shrug it off.

Don't poke the bear unless you're ready for the response.

Now there's a illogical comparison, is Canada currently occupied by the US? is Mexico?

Have you read the Genna convention and the articles I posted? I doubt it. If you did you would see why they are committing war crimes.

 Soladrin wrote:


Uhuh, fighting a country that has openly stated that your extermination is their goal looks like a moral high to me.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:


Uhuh, fighting a country that has openly stated that your extermination is their goal looks like a moral high to me.

If Israel occupied your home, what would you say about them?

 Soladrin wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:


Uhuh, fighting a country that has openly stated that your extermination is their goal looks like a moral high to me.

If Israel occupied your home, what would you say about them?

I'd be pissed off, I wouldn't threaten an entire country, much less a race with genocide. If that's how everyone thought there wouldn't be any Germans left either. Or insert any country/race.

In March 2006, Hamas released its official legislative program. The document clearly signaled that Hamas could refer the issue of recognizing Israel to a national referendum. Under the heading "Recognition of Israel," it stated simply (AFP, 3/11/06): "The question of recognizing Israel is not the jurisdiction of one faction, nor the government, but a decision for the Palestinian people." This was a major shift away from their 1988 charter.[66] A few months later, via Maryland's Jerome Segal, the group sent a letter to U.S. President George Bush stating they "don't mind having a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders", and asked for direct negotiations: "Segal emphasized that a state within the 1967 borders and a truce for many years could be considered Hamas' de facto recognition of Israel."[67]

In an April 2008 meeting between Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, an understanding was reached in which Hamas agreed it would respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the territory seized by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, provided this were ratified by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Hamas later publicly offered a long-term truce with Israel if Israel agreed to return to its 1967 borders and grant the "right of return" to all Palestinian refugees.[68] In November 2008, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh re-stated that Hamas was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and offered Israel a long-term truce "if Israel recognized the Palestinians' national rights".[69] In 2009, in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Haniyeh repeated his group's support for a two-state settlement based on 1967 borders: "We would never thwart efforts to create an independent Palestinian state with borders [from] June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital."[70] On December 1, 2010, Ismail Haniyeh again repeated, "We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees," and "Hamas will respect the results [of a referendum] regardless of whether it differs with its ideology and principles."[71]

In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence. Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader, during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel.[72] "Israel—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there—almost seems to understand," wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, "and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations".[73]

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:


Uhuh, fighting a country that has openly stated that your extermination is their goal looks like a moral high to me.

If Israel occupied your home, what would you say about them?

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:


Uhuh, fighting a country that has openly stated that your extermination is their goal looks like a moral high to me.

If Israel occupied your home, what would you say about them?

The Isreali isn't hasn't occupied Gaza since 2005.

Immediately after Israel withdrew in 2005, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated, "the legal status of the areas slated for evacuation has not changed."[45] Human Rights Watch also contested that this ended the occupation.[48][49] The United Nations, Human Rights Watch and many other international bodies and NGOs continues to consider Israel to be the occupying power of the Gaza Strip as Israel controls Gaza Strip's airspace, territorial waters and controls the movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza by air or sea.[13][14][15]

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs maintains an office on “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” which concerns itself with the Gaza Strip.[50] In his statement on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories" wrote that international humanitarian law applied to Israel "in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."[51] In a 2009 interview on Democracy Now Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) contends that Israel is an occupying power. However, Meagan Buren, Senior Adviser to the Israel Project, a pro-Israel media group contests that characterization.[52]

In 2007, after Hamas defeated Fatah in the Battle of Gaza (2007) and took control over the Gaza Strip, Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. Palestinian rocket attacks and Israeli raids, such as Operation Hot Winter continued into 2008. A six month ceasefire was agreed in June 2008, but it was broken several times by both Israel and Hamas. As it reached its expiry, Hamas announced that they were unwilling to renew the ceasefire without improving the terms.[53] At the end of December 2008 Israeli forces began Operation Cast Lead, launching the Gaza War that left an estimated 1,166–1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.[54][55][56]

In January 2012, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General stated that under resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the UN still regards Gaza to be part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

so let's hear you admit it, Gaza is occupied territory. You keep forgiving and turning a blind eye towards everything Israel does, if you want to continue this discussion, start by admitting Israel is occupying Palestine since 1967.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

so let's hear you admit it, Gaza is occupied territory. You keep forgiving and turning a blind eye towards everything Israel does, if you want to continue this discussion, start by admitting Israel is occupying Palestine since 1967?

 Jihadin wrote:
Hhmmm. Out of those 508 civilian killed. How many were not willing participants in a human shield.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Hhmmm. Out of those 508 civilian killed. How many were not willing participants in a human shield.

There really is no way of checking that. Not that it would change the death count. Though it would make them look more silly I guess.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

so let's hear you admit it, Gaza is occupied territory. You keep forgiving and turning a blind eye towards everything Israel does, if you want to continue this discussion, start by admitting Israel is occupying Palestine since 1967.

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

so let's hear you admit it, Gaza is occupied territory. You keep forgiving and turning a blind eye towards everything Israel does, if you want to continue this discussion, start by admitting Israel is occupying Palestine since 1967.

First, describe to me what is "Palestine"?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Do try and learn about what you're talking about. It is still, and since 1967 an occupied territory

Do try and understand that if Israel didn't control those borders... the armed escalation would be worse.

so let's hear you admit it, Gaza is occupied territory. You keep forgiving and turning a blind eye towards everything Israel does, if you want to continue this discussion, start by admitting Israel is occupying Palestine since 1967.

First, describe to me what is "Palestine"?

Oh now that's ignorance at it's finest. you criticize Palestine for not recognizing Israel and thus deserve the violence against them. Then turn around and start the well palestine doesn't exist argument. so let's hear how they are an invented people and you americans aren't. Go read a book.

 whembly wrote:


No... I'm trying to pin down which active groups you're defending.

The Gazian?

The West Banks?

All of them?

So, get off the high horse boyo and try to have a conversation here...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:


No... I'm trying to pin down which active groups you're defending.

The Gazian?

The West Banks?

All of them?

So, get off the high horse boyo and try to have a conversation here...

Until you can admit the most basic undisputed facts, how can you pretend you're trying to have a conversation? Why can't you acknowledge Israel has occupied territories in Palestine, that consist of the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip? This is a forum, if you have a point make it.

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:


No... I'm trying to pin down which active groups you're defending.

The Gazian?

The West Banks?

All of them?

So, get off the high horse boyo and try to have a conversation here...

Until you can admit the most basic undisputed facts, how can you pretend you're trying to have a conversation? Why can't you acknowledge Israel has occupied territories in Palestine, that consist of the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip? This is a forum, if you have a point make it.

I'm disputing the whole idea that it's all Israel's fault.

Israel kicked ass and took names in 1967. So, from that point forward, imo, they dictate the terms of those territories. Ya know... that's how victors in wars work.

But, go ahead and keep screaming that the IDF are comitting henious war crimes. I'm sure The Hague would be interested...

IDF built a fething field hospital at the Gaza border working with Red Crescent to treat wounded Palestinians from Gaza.

Those fething monsters...right?!?

Oh... those freaking tunnels the Hamas built/building.

Why in the feth are they spending that much money on fething tunnels and Rockets?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hamas began building tunnels as a method of economic sustenance.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hamas began building tunnels as a method of economic sustenance.

No. Just, no. I've largely ignored the gak you've been talking, because it's exactly that... But building tunnels for "economic sustenance"??? get the feth outta here with that crap... They built them to bring arms and munitions into position to attempt to conduct raids, attacks and other more "terrorist" like acts... If it truly was for economic reasons, we'd undoubtedly see evidence of such, such as food/water or medical supplies as things get dropped, packages occasionally break, etc. instead, the ONLY thing we see is munitions and various weapons.


Unless of course, your definition of economy refers to some strange "War Economy" where arms and munitions all carry their own unique prices due to supply and demand. (as in the subject discussed in Metal Gear Solid 4)

The Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels are passages that have been dug under the Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow strip of land, 14 km (8.699 miles) in length, situated along the border between Gaza Strip and Egypt. After the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979[1] the town of Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, was split by this Corridor. One half of the town belongs to Egypt, and the other half is located in the southern part of Gaza. After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the Philadelphi Corridor was placed under the control of the Palestine Authority until 2007. When the Hamas seized power in 2007, Egypt and Israel closed borders with Gaza.[2] [3]

In 2009, Egypt began the construction of an underground barrier to block existing tunnels and make new ones harder to dig. In 2011, Egypt relaxed restrictions at its border with the Gaza Strip, allowing Palestinians to cross freely.[2]

In 2013-2014, Egypt's military has destroyed most of the 1,200 tunnels which are used for transport of goods into Gaza

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hamas began building tunnels as a method of economic sustenance.

No. Just, no. I've largely ignored the gak you've been talking, because it's exactly that... But building tunnels for "economic sustenance"??? get the feth outta here with that crap... They built them to bring arms and munitions into position to attempt to conduct raids, attacks and other more "terrorist" like acts... If it truly was for economic reasons, we'd undoubtedly see evidence of such, such as food/water or medical supplies as things get dropped, packages occasionally break, etc. instead, the ONLY thing we see is munitions and various weapons.


Unless of course, your definition of economy refers to some strange "War Economy" where arms and munitions all carry their own unique prices due to supply and demand. (as in the subject discussed in Metal Gear Solid 4)

Take it up with time magazine:
http://time.com/3015543/gaza-israel-tunnels/

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
No. Just, no. I've largely ignored the gak you've been talking, because it's exactly that... But building tunnels for "economic sustenance"??? get the feth outta here with that crap... They built them to bring arms and munitions into position to attempt to conduct raids, attacks and other more "terrorist" like acts... If it truly was for economic reasons, we'd undoubtedly see evidence of such, such as food/water or medical supplies as things get dropped, packages occasionally break, etc. instead, the ONLY thing we see is munitions and various weapons.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
No. Just, no. I've largely ignored the gak you've been talking, because it's exactly that... But building tunnels for "economic sustenance"??? get the feth outta here with that crap... They built them to bring arms and munitions into position to attempt to conduct raids, attacks and other more "terrorist" like acts... If it truly was for economic reasons, we'd undoubtedly see evidence of such, such as food/water or medical supplies as things get dropped, packages occasionally break, etc. instead, the ONLY thing we see is munitions and various weapons.

 sebster wrote:

Anyhow, I just wanted to post one of those pictures of Palestinians taking cows through the tunnels, because that is incredible. If you're interested you should go see the pictures of the cows being lowered down on ropes.

 dogma wrote:
You're such a fool. Obviously there are rockets in that cow's ass.

 dogma wrote:


Also, how is this a thing?

 sebster wrote:
Incidentally, reading through this thread has pretty much just convinced me to stay away from this thread.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Just because they occupy the territory does not give them the right to slaughter innocent women & children for whatever nonsense they're using as an excuse this time..

 Seaward wrote:
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

Welcome back, by the way.

 dogma wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure.

Also, how is this a thing?

Israel does not want peace
Rejectionism is embedded in Israel's most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone.

Israel does not want peace. There is nothing I have ever written that I would be happier to be proved wrong about. But the evidence is piling up. In fact, it can be said that Israel has never wanted peace – a just peace, that is, one based on a just compromise for both sides. It’s true that the routine greeting in Hebrew is Shalom (peace) – shalom when one leaves and shalom when one arrives. And, at the drop of a hat, almost every Israeli will say he wants peace, of course he does. But he’s not referring to the kind of peace that will bring about the justice without which there is no peace and there will be no peace. Israelis want peace, not justice, certainly not anything based on universal values. Thus, “Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” Not only is there no peace: In recent years, Israel has moved away from even the aspiration to make peace. It has despaired utterly of it. Peace has disappeared from the Israeli agenda, its place taken by the collective anxieties that are systematically implanted, and by personal, private matters that now take precedence over all else.

The Israeli longing for peace seemingly died about a decade ago, after the failure of the Camp David summit in 2000, the dissemination of the lie that there is no Palestinian partner for peace, and, of course, the horrific blood-soaked period of the second intifada. But the truth is that even before that, Israel never really wanted peace. Israel has never, not for a minute, treated the Palestinians as human beings with equal rights. It has never viewed their distress as understandable human and national distress.

The Israeli peace camp, too – if ever there was such a thing – also died a lingering death amid the harrowing scenes of the second intifada and the no-partner lie. All that remained were a handful of organizations that were as determined and devoted as they were ineffectual in the face of the delegitimization campaigns mounted against them. Israel, therefore, was left with its rejectionist stance.

The single most overwhelming item of evidence of Israel’s rejection of peace is, of course, the settlements project. From the dawn of its existence, there has never been a more reliable or more precise litmus test for Israel’s true intentions than this particular enterprise. In plain words: The builders of settlements want to consolidate the occupation, and those who want to consolidate the occupation do not want peace. That’s the whole story in a nutshell.

On the assumption that Israel’s decisions are rational, it is impossible to accept construction in the territories and the aspiration to peace as mutually coexisting. Every act of building in the settlements, every mobile home and every balcony, conveys rejection. If Israel had wanted to achieve peace through the Oslo Accords, it would at least have stopped the construction in the settlements at its own initiative. That this did not happen proves that Oslo was fraudulent, or at best the chronicle of a failure foretold. If Israel had wanted to achieve peace at Taba, at Camp David, at Sharm el-Sheikh, in Washington or in Jerusalem, its first move should have been to end all construction in the territories. Unconditionally. Without a quid pro quo. The fact that Israel did not is proof that it did not want a just peace.

But the settlements were only a touchstone of Israel’s intentions. Its rejectionism is embedded far more deeply – in its DNA, its bloodstream, its raison d’être, its most primal beliefs. There, at the deepest level, lies the concept that this land is destined for the Jews alone. There, at the deepest level, is entrenched the value of “am sgula” – God’s “treasured people” – and “God chose us.” In practice, this is translated to mean that, in this land, Jews are allowed to do what is forbidden to others. That is the point of departure, and there is no way to get from there to a just peace. There is no way to reach a just peace when the name of the game is the dehumanization of the Palestinians. No way to achieve peace when the demonization of the Palestinians is hammered into people’s heads day after day. Those who are convinced that every Palestinian is a suspicious person and that every Palestinian wants “to throw the Jews into the sea” will never make peace with the Palestinians. Most Israelis are convinced of the truth of both those statements.

In the past decade, the two peoples have been separated from each another. The average young Israeli will never meet his Palestinian peer, other than during his army service (and then only if he does his service in the territories). Nor will the average young Palestinian ever meet an Israeli his own age, other than the soldier who huffs and puffs at him at the checkpoint, or invades his home in the middle of the night, or in the person of the settler who usurps his land or torches his groves.

Consequently, the only encounter between the two people is between the occupiers, who are armed and violent, and the occupied, who are despairing and also turn to violence. Gone are the days when Palestinians worked in Israel and Israelis shopped in Palestine. Gone is the period of the half-normal and quarter-equal relations that existed for a few decades between the two peoples that share the same piece of territory. It is very easy, in this state of affairs, to incite and inflame the two peoples against one another, to spread fears and to instill new hatreds on top of those that already exist. This, too, is a sure recipe for non-peace.

So it was that a new Israeli yearning sprang up: the desire for separation: “They will be there and we will be here (and also there).” At a time when the majority of Palestinians – an assessment I allow myself to make after decades of covering the territories – still want coexistence, even if less and less, most Israelis want disengagement and separation, but without paying the price. The two-state vision has gained widespread adherence, but without any intention to implement it in practice. Most Israelis are in favor, but not now and maybe not even here. They have been trained to believe that there is no partner for peace – a Palestinian partner, that is – but that there is an Israeli partner.

Unfortunately, the truth is almost the reverse. The Palestinian non-partners no longer have any chance to prove that they are partners; the Israeli non-partners are convinced that they are interlocutors. So began the process in which Israeli conditions, obstacles and difficulties were heaped up, one more milestone in Israeli rejectionism. First came the demand for a cessation of terrorism; then the demand for a change of leadership (Yasser Arafat as a stumbling block); and after that Hamas became the hurdle. Now it’s the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Israel considers every step it takes – from mass political arrests to building in the territories – to be legitimate, whereas every Palestinian move is “unilateral.”

The only country on the planet with no borders is so far unwilling to delineate even the compromise borders it is ready to be satisfied with. Israel has not internalized the fact that, for the Palestinians, the borders of 1967 are the mother of all compromises, the red line of justice (or relative justice). For the Israelis, they are “suicide borders.” This is why the preservation of the status quo has become the true Israeli aim, the primary goal of Israeli policy, almost its be-all and end-all. The problem is that the existing situation cannot last forever. Historically, few nations have ever agreed to live under occupation without resistance. And the international community, too, is one day apt to utter a firm pronouncement on this state of affairs, with accompanying punitive measures. It follows that the Israeli goal is unrealistic.

Disconnected from reality, the majority of Israelis pursue their regular way of life. In their mind’s eye the world is always against them, and the areas of occupation on their doorstep are beyond their realm of interest. Anyone who dares criticize the occupation policy is branded an anti-Semite, every act of resistance is perceived as an existential threat. All international opposition to the occupation is read as the “delegitimizing” of Israel and as a provocation to the country’s very existence. The world’s seven billion people – most of whom are against the occupation – are wrong, and six million Israeli Jews – most of whom support the occupation – are right. That’s the reality in the eyes of the average Israeli.

Add to this the repression, the concealment and the obfuscation, and you have another explanation for the rejectionism: Why should anyone strive for peace as long as life in Israel is good, calm prevails and the reality is concealed? The only way the besieged Gaza Strip can remind people of its existence is by firing rockets, and the West Bank only gets onto the agenda these days when blood is shed there. Similarly, the viewpoint of the international community is only taken into account when it tries to impose boycotts and sanctions, which in their turn immediately generate a campaign of self-victimization studded with blunt – and at times also impertinent – historical accusations.

This, then, is the gloomy picture. It contains not a ray of hope. The change will not happen on its own, from within Israeli society, as long as that society continues to behave as it does. The Palestinians have made more than one mistake, but their mistakes are marginal. Basic justice is on their side, and basic rejectionism is the Israelis’ purview. The Israelis want occupation, not peace.

I only hope I am wrong.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Just because they occupy the territory does not give them the right to slaughter innocent women & children for whatever nonsense they're using as an excuse this time..

Considering Hamas murders women and children all the time, intentionally not just as collateral damage, and the cowardly scum never strike directly at the IDF.... (with good reason, those fethers are scary) I ain't feeling the sympathy you're hoping to engender here.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Speaking of which, does anyone else remember the Fogel family? Do a Google image search I dare you.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Just because they occupy the territory does not give them the right to slaughter innocent women & children for whatever nonsense they're using as an excuse this time..

Considering Hamas murders women and children all the time, intentionally not just as collateral damage, and the cowardly scum never strike directly at the IDF.... (with good reason, those fethers are scary) I ain't feeling the sympathy you're hoping to engender here.

Speaking of which, does anyone else remember the Fogel family? Do a Google image search I dare you.

 Da Boss wrote:
Any takers on the settlement issue? No?

 whembly wrote:
AFAIK there's none in Gaza.

(I think there's a few in West Bank for strategic reasons).

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
AFAIK there's none in Gaza.

Hamas made it too hot so they all got pulled out in 2005.

(I think there's a few in West Bank for strategic reasons).

Yeah. Strategery.

Israel is still building settlements in the West Bank. Their only strategic value is that they're build on the best pieces of land with near to no compensation to who owned it before (because they're either dead, arrested, or fled).

 LordofHats wrote:
Acting like Gaza and the West Bank are worlds apart with absolutely no connection between them must be one of the most silly things in this thread.

But, is there explicit treaty that Israel must withdraw from the West Bank?

 LordofHats wrote:

But, is there explicit treaty that Israel must withdraw from the West Bank?

The Road to Peace plan called for 2 things as step one; the PLO stops shooting rockets at Israel and Israel stops building settlements. The PLO stopped shooting rockets. Israel kept building settlements. Plan fell apart.

Ignoring the innate problem of taking occupied territory and settling it with your own people, Israel will never secure peace with the Palestinians so long as it continues to build in the West Bank. There is no such thing as a treaty that prevents you from taking land that isn't yours, that's just basic conduct. Israel was did not annex the West Bank in 1967. It's not theirs.

These aren't military installations, they aren't shanty towns;



They're colonizing and pushing the Palestinians off (sometimes using shady means). That tends to agitate people.

Israel did take over Gaza and the West Bank from the '67 war... they just chose NOT to annex them simply because they didn't want to incorporate the Occupied Territories™ with all the Arabs into Israel.

I believe Israelis have annexed lands near the Golan Heights for years but recently returned to Syria.

I believe Israel didn't annex the territories it occupied in '67 primarily because it's been hoping to use them as bargaining chips to secure peace treaties with its neighbors

So... how do you combat a militant group of people who refuses to accept Israel's right to exist...even within the pre-'67 borders?

 LordofHats wrote:
Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start.

 LordofHats wrote:

Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start. Another is to minimize reasons to want to take militant action (stop taking their land is also a good start).

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start. Another is to minimize reasons to want to take militant action (stop taking their land is also a good start).

Um... who elected the Hamas?

Do you believe, if Israel did all those things... that, there be peace?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start. Another is to minimize reasons to want to take militant action (stop taking their land is also a good start).

Um... who elected the Hamas?

Do you believe, if Israel did all those things... that, there be peace?

A proportion of the Palestinian people.

Though to throw that in context: In the last general election here in the UK, the Tories "won" with 32.4% of the votes. However there was only an election turnout of 65.1%. So actually the Tories only got 21.06% of the eligible populations support.

So we got a government which less than a quarter of the eligible population voted for.

See why the "Palestinians elected Hamas" argument is a bit ridiculous for painting the whole Palestinian population as supporting Hamas?

 whembly wrote:

Um... who elected the Hamas?

Do you believe, if Israel did all those things... that, there be peace?

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start. Another is to minimize reasons to want to take militant action (stop taking their land is also a good start).

Um... who elected the Hamas?

Do you believe, if Israel did all those things... that, there be peace?

A proportion of the Palestinian people.

Though to throw that in context: In the last general election here in the UK, the Tories "won" with 32.4% of the votes. However there was only an election turnout of 65.1%. So actually the Tories only got 21.06% of the eligible populations support.

So we got a government which less than a quarter of the eligible population voted for.

See why the "Palestinians elected Hamas" argument is a bit ridiculous for painting the whole Palestinian population as supporting Hamas?

Ever heard of a phrase "Elections has consequences"?

And, yes... sometimes deadly consequences.

You realize that there are no good answers here... right?

Someone is going to lose.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... who elected the Hamas?

It's like this hasn't been explained a million times already

Do you believe, if Israel did all those things... that, there be peace?

More than there is now. Hamas I honestly suspect will pucker out on its own. Their cause removed they'd likely collapse as a group. Other groups like Hezbollah are another story (though its hard to tell just how much Hezbollah actually cares about Israel these days). Islamist Jihad is basically where you go when you're too extreme even for Hamas (though, politically Islamist Jihad has more realistic goals than Hamas, it's just that the people who make up the bulk of the group are absolutely insane). But come on. Any status quo is going to be better than the current one at this point.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So children die because some people elected a government. Children who had no say and some of which weren't even alive when the elections took place?

 whembly wrote:
Make 'em all Israeli. That way, everyone has a chance to engage the political process.

A game changer needs to happen... otherwise, this is the status-quo.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start.

You talk to some people who clearly don't like arabs or muslims and that's all it takes to dehumanize 2 million people. Boom, they're all terrorists.

 LordofHats wrote:
The entire point of Zionism in the first place was to create a Jewish state. Having a Jewish minority defeats that. Even then, the Palestinians in Israel are already marginalized second class citizens in practice. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza know this (it's the core principle behind Islamist Jihad's founder's ideology, and in that respect he's factually correct).

 Bullockist wrote:

oooh, whembly is a bad man.
I totally agree with this, it really gaks me atm that people are worried about an air plane that got shot down when 3 times as many people have already been killed in this invasion (not counting wounded) and many more will follow. It's just fething weird.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The entire point of Zionism in the first place was to create a Jewish state. Having a Jewish minority defeats that. Even then, the Palestinians in Israel are already marginalized second class citizens in practice. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza know this (it's the core principle behind Islamist Jihad's founder's ideology, and in that respect he's factually correct).

Yet they still enjoy some of the most liberal rights in the Middle East.

Curious, that.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well I'm sure they enjoy more rights in Israel than Jews do in most Islamic countries. And Christians for that matter.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well I'm sure they enjoy more rights in Israel than Jews do in most Islamic countries. And Christians for that matter.

I'm not sure that having more rights than the average person in say, Iran, is really all that difficult, or indeed, something that should be boasted as an accomplishment. Israel tends to discriminate horribly against its citizens of Palestinian descent.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Getting past the myth that every Palestinian is a militant is a good start. Another is to minimize reasons to want to take militant action (stop taking their land is also a good start).

Um... who elected the Hamas?

Do you believe, if Israel did all those things... that, there be peace?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well I'm sure they enjoy more rights in Israel than Jews do in most Islamic countries. And Christians for that matter.

I'm not sure that having more rights than the average person in say, Iran, is really all that difficult, or indeed, something that should be boasted as an accomplishment. Israel tends to discriminate horribly against its citizens of Palestinian descent.

Considering the high probability of those citizens being literal walking bombs, I'm sure you'll understand why my Give-a-feth-O-meter is barely registering.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well I'm sure they enjoy more rights in Israel than Jews do in most Islamic countries. And Christians for that matter.

I'm not sure that having more rights than the average person in say, Iran, is really all that difficult, or indeed, something that should be boasted as an accomplishment. Israel tends to discriminate horribly against its citizens of Palestinian descent.

Considering the high probability of those citizens being literal walking bombs, I'm sure you'll understand why my Give-a-feth-O-meter is barely registering.

That's grand. Let's lock up all those black people whilst we're at it, since they're statistically more likely to commit crime. And all those gay men, since they have a higher 'probability' of having aids.

 Ketara wrote:

That's grand. Let's lock up all those black people whilst we're at it, since they're statistically more likely to commit crime. And all those gay men, since they have a higher 'probability' of having aids.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well I'm sure they enjoy more rights in Israel than Jews do in most Islamic countries. And Christians for that matter.

I'm not sure that having more rights than the average person in say, Iran, is really all that difficult, or indeed, something that should be boasted as an accomplishment. Israel tends to discriminate horribly against its citizens of Palestinian descent.

Considering the high probability of those citizens being literal walking bombs, I'm sure you'll understand why my Give-a-feth-O-meter is barely registering.

That's grand. Let's lock up all those black people whilst we're at it, since they're statistically more likely to commit crime. And all those gay men, since they have a higher 'probability' of having aids.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Black and gay people are strapping,bombs to themselves?

For all,your pompous self proclaimed moral superiority and holier than thou attitude, I highly doubt you could sit on a bus in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem next to a Muslim and not feel the slightest bit of apprehension.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Black and gay people are strapping,bombs to themselves?

For all,your pompous self proclaimed moral superiority and holier than thou attitude, I highly doubt you could sit on a bus in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem next to a Muslim and not feel the slightest bit of apprehension.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



The difference is, we're dealing with a religious/societal ideology that glorifies something as absurd as blowing yourself up. And one that has the death of all non-believers written in the very foundation of it... Conversely, all other modern religions preach some form of tolerance and getting by. (yes, I know that at some point it was in Mainstream Christianity that "to kill an infidel is not murder, it is the path to heaven", but that's not the modern belief of the majority of the religion)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well I'm sure they enjoy more rights in Israel than Jews do in most Islamic countries. And Christians for that matter.