The Left, Anti-Zionism & Anti-Semitism

For those of us who study Israel and Zionism from the vantage point of Britain, there are some things we are able to predict with unerring accuracy. One such is that whenever the latest depressing dispatch arrives from the bloody ground-hog day that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there will swiftly follow, from print journalists and keyboard warriors alike, a flurry of discourse on the question of the British left's position on Israel and on the correlation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Support for the Palestinian cause, nigh universal on the British left, has become so myopic as to amount to a delegitimisation of Israel which is de facto anti-Semitic. So the argument goes. To which the left responds with enraged accusations of slander, moral obfuscation and misuse of the charge of racism.

These exchanges are invariably unedifying, steeped in ad hominem vitriol and contribute only to the ever-increasing divide between the two parties to the conflict. Even the most civil example of the debate, between Brian Klug and Robert Wistrich ended with very little common ground being reached. Doubtless, Bibi Netanyahu's victory will spark a new round of intellectual hostility. It will be seen by the left as an endorsement by the Israeli public of the rejectionist, expansionist view of the conflict, and will almost certainly exacerbate the keyboard-war between the left and the defenders of Israel. It will confirm the suspicions of many that Israel itself, and Zionism along with it, is inherently right-wing, bellicose and intransigent. The more hardline Israel gets, the more this argument is solidified, and Netanyahu left Israeli voters in no doubt what they would be getting when he announced before the election that his Israel would not countenance Palestinian statehood.

This article is an attempt to address the issue with reason but not with dispassion. It tries to highlight ways in which the left needs to alter its thinking with regard to Zionism and also seeks to defend the left from some unjustified criticism. It is written by one tired of the myopic character of the debate who believes that we owe the conflict better than to discuss it in a manner more befitting the message boards of an article on a football match, with advocates of each side trumpeting the deserving virtues of their own and failing to see any merit in the position of the other.

The history of the left's position on Zionism is long and complex, but there are a few points that can be made accurately and succinctly. In the immediate pre and post-1948 periods, the British left was broadly, and often enthusiastically, supportive of the Zionist movement and then the State of Israel. Weizmann and the other pre-State Zionists had few more vociferous gentile cheerleaders, for example, than the Guardian editor C.P. Scott. This was of course by no means a uniform support, and there were many outliers who denied Zionism's legitimacy, but this article is not a history of the left and it's relationship with Israel and so must paint in broad generalities.

The situation changed fundamentally following Israel's victory in the Six Day War of June 1967 and its acquisition of the Occupied Territories.

The left underwent a wholesale reconsideration of its view of Zionism based upon the fact that, following the war, Israel no longer looked to them like a persecuted underdog in need of solidarity, but rather appeared as a militaristic outpost of Western Imperialism (this despite the fact that many of its Western allies, including Britain, were not at all supportive of Israel's occupation of the territories). That this occurred at the time that the popular left was undergoing a general move towards an anti-colonial emphasis, inspired by the Vietnam War and the Algerian uprising against the French, ensured that Israel quickly and dramatically lost most of a leftist support it had once been able to rely on.

Not all on the far left moved to an anti-Zionist position. Ironically, that doyen of the 60s/70s revolutionary left, Fidel Castro, saw no contradiction between supporting the Palestinian national struggle and defending Israel's right to exist. 'Revolutionaries', he said, 'never threaten a whole people with destruction.' Ralph Milliband, Holocaust Survivor, ardent Socialist and the Daily Mail's favourite Briton reacted with alarm at the anti-Israeli currents he saw developing in the Socialist movement in the late 1960s. 'The elimination of the State [of Israel]', he wrote, 'does not seem to me a policy that Socialists worthy of the name could support.' Instead, Milliband advocated 'condemning the Israelis for their foreign policy' and to do so 'in the name of Socialist principles, but without putting the existence of the State in question.' (Of course, to the worst kind of leftist anti-Zionist, Milliband was a Jew and so would say that. A particularly hypocritical leftist position is to champion the Jewishness of Jewish critics of Israel-Chomsky, Finkelstein et al.- but hold that the very same Jewishness of Israeli defenders makes them part of the 'lobby' and thus unworthy of consideration.) Jean Paul Sartre, meanwhile, wrestled with how the anti-colonialist should properly view Israel and Zionism but still advocated solidarity with the Jewish State.

Nonetheless, the late 60s leftist re-evaluation of Zionism led many to an embrace of Nasserism and to subsequently back any Levantine movement, no matter how reactionary, as long as it was anti-Israeli. Lest we dismiss this as a product purely of the heady days of the late 60s-early 70s rebellion, fast forward to 2006 and witness prominent American leftist intellectual Judith Butler's notorious belief that 'understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important.' It is important and fair to note Butler's caveat that 'that does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence.' Butler's equivocation notwithstanding, Hamas and Hezbollah are part of no left that I know or understand, but this attitude is consistent with much left-wing rhetoric since its post-67 re-appraisal of Zionism.

This is a perennial left-wing problem, and one that I wrestle with a great deal. The left is not always good at differentiating among revolutionary movements the genuinely progressive and pluralist from those whose espousal of national liberation is really a mask for chauvinism and hatred. It is wont too often to blindly subscribe to the dictum “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and therefore whomever opposes the forces of the Imperialist West must, by necessity, be virtuous. This was somewhat more forgivable amongst anti-American post-WW2 Stalinists when the horrors of Stalin's regime were not fully known. It was less excusable when some on the anti-Iraq War left downplayed the barbarity of Saddam Hussein (“Yes he tortures and murders but so do the Israelis”). Saddam's sadistic track record, it is fair to say, was a matter of public record and the left needn't and shouldn't have used mealy-mouthed obfuscation to condemn the invasion. Lord knows there were enough deserving criticisms to be made. One of the undying lessons taught us by George Orwell is that it is imperative not to idealise those who oppose who you oppose; to see clearly their true nature and champion those who represent humanist ideals and decry those who are undeserving.

To return to the question of Zionism and the left, post-67, support for the Palestinian right to self-determination has become a hallmark of the popular left, and anti-Zionism has generally moved from the right to the left. This brief summation is the context in which we must view the contemporary debate.

Let us now look at the various expressions of left-wing anti-Zionism. If we take the totality of self-identifying British leftists who further self-define as anti-Zionist I think we can perhaps divide them into certain schools of thought and motivation, and from there begin to judge their attitudes in terms of appropriateness to a left-wing agenda.

If you are an anti-Zionist in that you inherently reject the right to sovereignty of the Jewish people; in other words, if -after millennia of pogrom after ghetto after massacre, culminating in the worst of all anti-Jewish orgies of violence, the Holocaust- you still refuse to grant the Jews the right to self-determination, self-governance and self-protection, then I feel that there is more than the whiff of the anti-Semite about you. For what you are essentially saying is one of two things: a) You care not at all for the survival of the Jewish people; b) You care for the survival of the Jewish people but believe this must be achieved as a stateless people in the diaspora. Belief in the continuation of the Jewish diaspora is not anti-Semitic.

Indeed, the majority of the world's Jews believe sufficiently in the viability of diaspora Jewish life that they continue to reside outside of the Jewish State. But if one argues that not only can Jewish continuity be achieved in the diaspora but that it must do so only there (this follows inarguably from the anti-Zionist position since it denies the desirability of the existence of the Jewish State) then one is either ignorant of, or (worse) aware of but unmoved by, the psychological strain gentile anti-Semitism and its frequent bloodthirsty manifestations have wrought on the Jewish mind. This position seems to me to be sufficiently anti-Jewish as to constitute anti-Semitism. It is also logically and philosophical inconsistent and hypocritical.

As leftists, we either agree with the rights of collective peoples to self-determination and sovereignty or we don't. It is maddening and cringe-worthy to hear leftists vigorously defend the national rights of the Kurds or the Chechens or other persecuted people (as indeed they should) and deny the same rights to the Jews. If Jews wish to wander that is their right, but Gentiles demanding the Wandering Jew is not the same.

If you consider yourself an anti-Zionist in that you accept the Jewish right to self-determination but reject the right to do so in an exclusivist manner- in other words in a particularist State which grants certain rights to Jews and not to non-Jews- then not only does this not make you an anti-Semite, but also allies you with a great many Jews and Israelis, including the so-called Israeli post-Zionists, who are not in the least self-hating. Criticism of this kind seems to me consistent with a left I am proud to be a part of; a left which rejects exclusivist and chauvinist societies.

With this in mind, and leaving aside for a moment the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories, Israel's Arab population (some 20% of the whole country) is technically equal and enfranchised. But this should not blind us to the realities of their status in the Jewish State where they are regarded by many as a fifth-column. When Netanyahu needed a late Hail-Mary electoral pass what weapon did he employ? “The rule of the right wing is in danger. Arab voters are going to the polls in droves! Go to the polling stations! Vote Likud!” Although Israeli President Reuven Rivlin has shown that the Likudnik spectrum also includes those who see Israel's Arabs in far more equal and positive terms, it seems to me that Israel's exclusivist character is a proper bone of contention for a left which is internationalist and multi-cultural. But this need not lead a leftist to an anti-Zionist position, anymore, for example, than his opposition to chauvinistic attitudes and policies towards minorities in India need lead him to oppose the sovereignty of India. In all other cases, repulsive state practice leads leftists to condemn the state and seek its improvement, not to deny or abjure its right to exist.

Now we come to the more complex and morally ambiguous issues. If, as a leftist, you understand the Jewish impulse for nationhood but cannot accept the decision to choose a land which, although replete with spiritual and cultural significance for the Jews, already contained a native population whose own national rights were ignored then, again, not only are you not an anti-Semite, but you are in the company of a great many early “Zionists” who believed deeply in Jewish self-determination but believed it should be pursued in a land, or portion of land, more genuinely terra nulius.

The Anglo-Jewish author Israel Zangwill was one who, having seen the error of his earlier estimation that first Ottoman and then Mandate Palestine was essentially uninhabited, broke with Herzlian Zionism and pursued his own version of non-Palestinian Jewish Nationhood with his Territorialist movement. Herzl himself was for a long time open to alternative sites, and was particularly keen on Patagonia.

This is, I think, the most justifiable and the most genuinely leftist anti-Zionist position to take. The early Zionist argument that the Palestinian population would welcome Jewish statehood because it would bring economic advancement was at best naïve and at worst reminiscent of the most odious justifications for colonial subjugation. The International Community recognised the legitimacy of the national rights of both Jews and Arabs in greater Palestine and proposed partition of the land in 1947. This plan was accepted by the Zionist authorities (though many argue that they saw it only as a jumping off point for further expansion) and rejected by the relevant Arab authorities. Shortly after the Israeli declaration of independence the new state was attacked by the surrounding Arab states in its War of Independence. Victory resulted not only in expanded Israeli territory from that envisaged by the UN Partition Plan, but also in the displacement of 700,000 odd Palestinian citizens and the birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem, what the Palestinians refer to as the Nakba (catastrophe). Debate continues to rage in Israel over two points: 1) Whether or not the Palestinian refugees fled their homes under inducement by Arab authorities or where forced to by the victorious Israelis and 2) Whether the expansion and displacement of the Arabs was an unplanned product of war or of orchestrated Israeli expansionism. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of these points, suffice it to say that the events briefly described have been the cause of untold Palestinian suffering and of much of the violent enmity between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Of those on the left who take a position that Zionism is justified as a movement for the national self-determination of the Jewish people but became unjustified a) when it settled on an already inhabited land or b) when its success resulted in 700,000 Palestinians losing their homes and being plunged into abject misery, we may debate and argue but I think it is logically and morally impossible to charge this position with anti-Semitism or with anything other than an appropriately leftist concern for an injured people. But it should be remembered that the contemporaneous left of the time almost entirely supported Israeli statehood and backed its cause in the 1948 War. The view at the time was that to take the established leftist tradition of supporting the persecuted underdog was to take the side of an Israel encircled my enemies on all sides, while, in Britain, the establishment position was to press the case of Britain's Arab allies. How times have changed!

It is imperative also to consider the post-1967 era, the era of occupation. For in the general leftist discourse on Israel, it is really the occupation that is paramount. I think a great many confuse the issue and say they are “against Zionism” when what they really mean is that they do not accept the borders of Israeli jurisdiction as they developed after the acquisition of the Occupied Territories in 1967. (Notice I don't follow the Israeli position and say “Disputed Territories”. If such radical bodies as the International Court of Justice and the US Government are comfortable defining the territories as Occupied then surely the matter is firmly put to bed.) Again this is perfectly justifiable but needn't automatically mean that one should have, ex necessitate rei, to oppose a Jewish State in some part of Palestine, as the international community in the guise of the UN felt was just and reasonable. Again we may argue long into the night as to whether the Occupation was a product of the exigencies of war or part of a calculated design inspired by the expansionist school of Zionist thought. But, again, opposition to the occupation, essential and noble as it is, does not require us to repudiate or de-legitimize the fundamental Zionist philosophy.

Let us turn briefly from the charges made by the left to those made against it. It Is argued that those who single out Israel while ignoring or downplaying the worse or similar behaviour of other states are de facto anti-Semitic. The problem with this proposition is that it damns the innocent along with the guilty. Someone generally concerned with the sufferings of mankind focussing their efforts upon the particular case of injustice done to the Palestinians is not by definition anti-Semitic. Who knows why particular issues seem to demand our attention while others, equally worthy of it, must be left to others. The chargers of anti-Semitism are, it seems to me, wrong when it comes to people of this sort. But singling out Israel from the long list of international transgressors does share, inadvertently or not, the same habit of highlighting the sins of Jews over those of others of the traditional anti-Semite.

Only the conscience of the individual knows from whence his motivation comes.

This point applies to the various attempts made in recent years at an academic boycott of Israeli Universities. While economic boycotts are often morally sound and useful, prohibiting intellectual cooperation and silencing the exchange of ideas are tactics unworthy of the left, particularly if boycotts are proposed only of Israeli institutions and not of those in other states to which the left should also object. Those in favour of the boycott of Israeli Universities should also ask themselves whether cutting off ties with the more reactionary elements in Israeli academia is worth the loss of collaboration with courageous academics like Baruch Kimmerling, Menachem Klein, Ariella Azoulay, or the late Israel Shahak.

Another weapon in the arsenal of Israel's defenders who charge the left with anti-Semitism is that the latter often compares Israeli actions with those of the Nazis. To equate Zionism with Nazism is illogical, irrational and monumentally disrespectful to the continued legacy of the Shoah. Zionism is not inherently a racist ideology but rather one itself forged from the fires of racial hatred. The UN was wrong in 1975 to equate Zionism with racism but would have been justified in charging the Israeli state with racism towards both its Arab citizens and those in the Occupied Territories. When leftists react to an Israeli atrocity with the Nazi equation they do so for shock value and because they know the charge will wound, not from any thought-out comparison of the two situations.

Nonetheless, sober and mainstream international bodies have affirmed that Israel has on occasion been guilty of crimes of which the Nazis were also guilty, particularly in terms of forced population transfer. Recognising this does not make Zionism equivalent to Nazism.

It means simply that Israeli governments have been guilty of egregious breaches of international law and fundamental human decency, in a way occasionally analogous to Nazi practice . I will repeat for absolute clarity, this does not make put Israel on a par with the Nazis. It means that of the countless crimes perpetuated by the Nazis, a small percentage are shared with Israel, as they are with countless other states, including Britain, whose guilt does not lead us to suggest that they should cease to exist. I will not apologise to Israel's critics who say that this statement does not go far enough in equating Zionism with Nazism, nor to Israeli defenders who say that to mention Israeli and Nazi practices in the same breath is either evil, anti-Semitic or both. Frankly, if the evidence fits a statement then the statement must be a fair one, a fact realised by the International Court of Justice who, in 2004, affirmed that Israel's settlement practices in Occupied Palestinian Territory amounted to a breach of the international prohibition on the forced transfer of populations, a prohibition enacted originally to prevent in future what was witnessed in Czechoslovakia under the Nazi occupation. I also make no apology for saying that the Israelis who conducted or defended such policies should, as members of the most persecuted group perhaps in human history, know better. But the anti-Zionists should also recognise that, if they advocate the destruction of the Israeli state because of the offences it commits, it is making a demand it does not make in the case of any other international malfeasant, including those with a far worse human rights record than Israel. Which leftists reacted to the Nazi or Soviet atrocities not just with a demand for punishment and justice but with a rejection of the fundamental German or Russian rights to self-determination?

To turn this latter question around, it is often said by leftist critics of Israel- Jewish and non-Jewish- that Israel invokes the Holocaust to excuse, or provide a smokescreen for, its behaviour. As a non-Jew, the Holocaust certainly does not justify Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, but I do believe it justifies Zionism itself, and we can and should decry the former without, by logical necessity, having to repudiate the latter. If we fail to appreciate the depth of the scars of the Holocaust; if we fail to understand the enormity of this collective experience and its impact on the Jewish mind and heart then, not only are we both impractical and unhelpful observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are inhuman as well. We condemn with the luxury and complacency of those who have never had to face the possible extinction of our tribe. What we cannot empathise with, but should never stop trying to sympathise with, is the psychological effect of knowing that there were, and are still, those who would see our race eradicated. Live with that for a while and see if you think you need a national home. Similarly (notice I don't say equally), when those on the Israeli side refuse to acknowledge the size of the injustice visited upon the Palestinians following Israeli statehood, and the profundity of their suffering, then not only are you both impractical and unhelpful observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you are inhuman as well. We should also recall that the Holocaust was a uniquely European disgrace, borne out of centuries of European anti-semitism by no means confined to Germany, and one in which the Palestinians had no part.

I have no doubt that there exist a certain section on the left who are simply classic anti-Semites; those who talk of 'The Jews' and their fondness for money and power. Anti-Zionism has certainly become a convenient cloak for those whose position on the Jews is most properly analagous to the most reactionary right-wing. Stated clearly, they belong on no left that I believe in. My definition of left has as its first, and perhaps defining principle, an insistence upon judging a person by their actions and the content of their character and not by their ethnic origin. Because, let us make no mistake here, when anti-Semites hate, they are doing so racially and not theologically. Jews themselves may see Jewishness as religion only but anti-Semites think in racialist terms.

Some invoke caveats for this which do them no credit. “Ah, but it's Israeli action which causes anti-Semitism. It's the Occupation.” Is the left really prepared to justify this? What Israeli behaviour can justifiably cause is anti-Israelism- a negative view, even hatred, of Israel's actions as a state. Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, pure and simple and it is un-leftist to excuse this because some Jews behave appallingly. I am aware that this is complicated somewhat by the claims of Israel to represent World Jewry, a proposition which if taken on face value implicates diaspora Jews in Israeli action. But we should, as most Jews do, refuse to accept the claim that the diaspora is responsible for the actions of the Jewish State. We should certainly expect diaspora Jews of conscience to criticise Israel when it behaves badly, and the “Israel, right or wrong, my Israel” defence is hollow and unworthy of moral people. But excusing hatred of Jews en masse because Israel behaves abominably is unworthy of the leftist tradition in which I was proud to be raised, one in which people are never condemned or persecuted because of their race or ethnicity. Could we justify hatred of Serbs as an ethnic group because of the genocidal murderousness of Milosevician Serb nationalism? For that matter, if we met a Serb who tried to justify the Milosevic years, would we hate and condemn him as a Serb rather than purely as a human being?

I think much anti-Zionism is reflexive and complacent. “Chomsky condemns Israel and opposes Zionism so it must be the leftist course” goes the rationale. I bow to few in my admiration for the Professor, and his views on Zionism itself are actually far more nuanced and complex than many realise, but if his unknowing tutelage has taught me one thing it is to question orthodoxy. This should be one of the first principles of 'being left' and when anti-Zionism has become a leftist orthodoxy we should question it. It is time for all leftists to be capable of holding two thoughts in their heads which seem contradictory but are not mutually incompatible. Namely, to wholeheartedly support Palestinian revanchism, restitution and justice on the one hand and also to recognise the legitimacy of the Jewish national movement. It is essential for the preservation of the left's moral integrity and intellectual rigour that it approaches Zionism from a consistent position. If we are in favour of the right to self-determination of a stateless people identifying and accepted as a national collective-today the Palestinians- then I fail to see how we can retrospectively deny the same moral rights to those Jews who in the first half of the 20 th century pursued their own national unity and sovereign movement.

It is not our peace to negotiate. We can only ever be interested and passionate observes. What we can do is aid the chances of peace, and we do this by contributing to a culture of reconciliation and compromise. This is a duty of all, but particularly those of us on the left who champion peace and decry war, I am pleased to say, with greater fervour and consistency than our adversaries on the right.

And in this duty we are nowhere. Actually we are worse than nowhere.

In our journalistic sniping, our keyboard warring and our stubborn refusal to see our opponents' humanity we are actively and wilfully sending the peace train in the wrong direction. For, whether we know it or not, the debate in the outside world has a very real effect on the conflict itself. Only when both sides view their enemy as a human being with rational and justifiable claims and desires can we hope for peace. But seldom do we in Britain contribute anything of substance to this process, and so exponential increase of hatred and violence- that moral tit-for-tat that we scold and attempt to correct in our children- remains the despairing lingua franca of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/view/2147/the-left-antizionism-antisemitism


Interesting article from the lefts perspective, one at least is far more honest and genuine than I can say than many of the left wing posters on this forum are and if anyone really needs to read this, it is Cass to see why some posters on here are clearly antisemtic in their Rhetoric they use. They may not think they are and you are excusing their hate they promote epsecially in regards to sassy. Who certainly does not believe israel has the right to a nation and the land to her belongs only to the Palestinian people, well that is antisemtic denying Jewish people a right to self determination and you are excusing her hate due to friendship, which I find the worst kind of dishonesty and a true friend would not be afraid to tell her that her discourse is very much discrminating. You may not like these facts cass, but it is even worse not to say something when it is a fact. I have spent years fighting against racism and discrimination, having researched far more than others, so I think I have a better understanding than most on what is and is not antisemitism. I do not agree with every point he makes, but it is an honest look at what crosses over as antisemitism

I've read that and would say that some things I agree with and some things I don't. The London Progressive Journal is fairly open and although predominantly 'left' is is not exclusively so. I've never heard of this fella Didge so what more can you tell us about him?

One thing I did pick up on was this extract...

Someone generally concerned with the sufferings of mankind focussing their efforts upon the particular case of injustice done to the Palestinians is not by definition anti-Semitic. Who knows why particular issues seem to demand our attention while others, equally worthy of it, must be left to others. The chargers of anti-Semitism are, it seems to me, wrong when it comes to people of this sort.

Do you agree with the author on this?

Irn Bru wrote:I've read that and would say that some things I agree with and some things I don't. The London Progressive Journal is fairly open and although predominantly 'left' is is not exclusively so. I've never heard of this fella Didge so what more can you tell us about him?

One thing I did pick up on was this extract...

Someone generally concerned with the sufferings of mankind focussing their efforts upon the particular case of injustice done to the Palestinians is not by definition anti-Semitic. Who knows why particular issues seem to demand our attention while others, equally worthy of it, must be left to others. The chargers of anti-Semitism are, it seems to me, wrong when it comes to people of this sort.

Do you agree with the author on this?

Yes and no. If there discourse is only aimed disproportionately at this one group, then the intent is clearly antisemitic, if they ignore far worse wrongs happening when all should constitute attention. Only read him today and have no idea and thought it only fair to give a left wing perspective, though I do not agree with all his views.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:I've read that and would say that some things I agree with and some things I don't. The London Progressive Journal is fairly open and although predominantly 'left' is is not exclusively so. I've never heard of this fella Didge so what more can you tell us about him?

One thing I did pick up on was this extract...

Someone generally concerned with the sufferings of mankind focussing their efforts upon the particular case of injustice done to the Palestinians is not by definition anti-Semitic. Who knows why particular issues seem to demand our attention while others, equally worthy of it, must be left to others. The chargers of anti-Semitism are, it seems to me, wrong when it comes to people of this sort.

Do you agree with the author on this?

Yes and no. If there discourse is only aimed disproportionately at this one group, then the intent is clearly antisemitic, if they ignore far worse wrongs happening when all should constitute attention. Only read him today and have no idea and thought it only fair to give a left wing perspective, though I do not agree with all his views.

Well if you can name another country that is doing what Israel are doing in occupying another land and treating the inhabitants that live there the way they are in buliding settlements etc. perhaps they will condemn them. Use the West Bank as an example for comparison.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes and no. If there discourse is only aimed disproportionately at this one group, then the intent is clearly antisemitic, if they ignore far worse wrongs happening when all should constitute attention. Only read him today and have no idea and thought it only fair to give a left wing perspective, though I do not agree with all his views.

Well if you can name another country that is doing what Israel are doing in occupying another land and treating the inhabitants that live there the way they are in buliding settlements etc. perhaps they will condemn them. Use the West Bank as an example for comparison.

Sure, every country in North and South America, Australia, many in fact.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes and no. If there discourse is only aimed disproportionately at this one group, then the intent is clearly antisemitic, if they ignore far worse wrongs happening when all should constitute attention. Only read him today and have no idea and thought it only fair to give a left wing perspective, though I do not agree with all his views.

Well if you can name another country that is doing what Israel are doing in occupying another land and treating the inhabitants that live there the way they are in buliding settlements etc. perhaps they will condemn them. Use the West Bank as an example for comparison.

Sure, every country in North and South America, Australia, many in fact.

So not condemning these countries makes someone antisemetic - really?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Sure, every country in North and South America, Australia, many in fact.

So not condemning these countries makes someone antisemetic - really?

Why are you not condemning then in any debates then Irn, maybe you can explain that to me, when all these nations were form like with America for a start breaking every single treaty with the Native American Indians to the point of pushing them out of their lands?
So yes really.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Sure, every country in North and South America, Australia, many in fact.

So not condemning these countries makes someone antisemetic - really?

Why are you not condemning then in any debates then Irn, maybe you can explain that to me, when all these nations were form like with America for a start breaking every single treaty with the Native American Indians to the point of pushing them out of their lands?
So yes really.

Which debates have been taking place on issues in these countries where I or any other poster has not condemned what particular wrongs have been discussed. Can you bring one up please?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why are you not condemning then in any debates then Irn, maybe you can explain that to me, when all these nations were form like with America for a start breaking every single treaty with the Native American Indians to the point of pushing them out of their lands?
So yes really.

Which debates have been taking place on issues in these countries where I or any other poster has not condemned what particular wrongs have been discussed. Can you bring one up please?

Started one today actually.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why are you not condemning then in any debates then Irn, maybe you can explain that to me, when all these nations were form like with America for a start breaking every single treaty with the Native American Indians to the point of pushing them out of their lands?
So yes really.

Which debates have been taking place on issues in these countries where I or any other poster has not condemned what particular wrongs have been discussed. Can you bring one up please?

Started one today actually.

A lot of threads have been started today - which one is it?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Started one today actually.

A lot of threads have been started today - which one is it?

Best you go looking for it then Irn, I have told you before I not your research assistant

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Started one today actually.

A lot of threads have been started today - which one is it?

Best you go looking for it then Irn, I have told you before I not your research assistant

I'm not suggesting that you are. Surely it's easy just to say which one you are talking about.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Best you go looking for it then Irn, I have told you before I not your research assistant

I'm not suggesting that you are. Surely it's easy just to say which one you are talking about.

Again off you go and find it, quite simple really.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Best you go looking for it then Irn, I have told you before I not your research assistant

I'm not suggesting that you are. Surely it's easy just to say which one you are talking about.

Again off you go and find it, quite simple really.

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Veya found it easy enough, some posters are just very lazy it seems in looking

Brasidas wrote:Veya found it easy enough, some posters are just very lazy it seems in looking

That's it then. The charges of antisemitism against members on here are dropped due to the lack of evidence.

When you consider what a who semites are, the argument becomes even for preposterous. Only a fool would think that all Jews are semites, they aren't by a long chalk.

Lets define who semites are:

Origin of the term

A Semite is a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples, mostly originating in the Near East, including: Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Ammonites, Amorites, Arameans, Chaldeans, Canaanites (including Hebrews/Israelites/Jews/Samaritans and Phoenicians/Carthaginians), Eblaites, Dilmunites, Edomites, Amalekites, Turukku, Ethiopian Semites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maltese, Mandaeans, Mhallami, Moabites, Shebans, Meluhhans, Maganites, Ubarites, Sabians and Ugarites. It was proposed at first to refer to the languages related to Hebrew by Ludwig Schlözer, in Eichhorn's "Repertorium", vol. VIII (Leipzig, 1781), p. 161. Through Eichhorn the name then came into general usage (cf. his "Einleitung in das Alte Testament" (Leipzig, 1787), I, p. 45). In his "Geschichte der neuen Sprachenkunde", pt. I (Göttingen, 1807) it had already become a fixed technical term.[3]

The word "Semitic" is derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in Genesis 5, Genesis 6, Genesis 10, or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite.

The concept of "Semitic" peoples is derived from Biblical accounts of the origins of the cultures known to the ancient Hebrews. In an effort to categorise the peoples known to them, those closest to them in culture and language were generally deemed to be descended from their supposed forefather Shem.

In Genesis 10:21–31, Shem is described as the father of Aram, Ashur, and Arpachshad: the Biblical ancestors of the Arabs, Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans, Sabaeans, and Hebrews, etc., all of whose languages are fairly closely related; the language family containing them was therefore named "Semitic" by linguists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

So someone should point out, that although Israel have tried to take over the term, Palestinians are semites as well.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Veya found it easy enough, some posters are just very lazy it seems in looking

That's it then. The charges of antisemitism against members on here are dropped due to the lack of evidence.

So abusing your position of a moderator again.
You do not get to decide what is dropped because you fail to condemn their racism.
I have provided plenty of evidence of which you choose to ignore.
One of which was easily proven over where both fail to even understand antisemitism and confusing it around the broader context of being antisemitic. Antisemitism is one area of antisemitic and as above Sassy has proven her complete ignorance on this and why she is the worst racist on this forum. If she is a proponent of antisemitism that makes her part of the broader group of being antisemitic, next she will be telling me the Nazi's were not antisemitic she is that ignorant. Nobody claimed Semitic only refereed to Jews, but antisemitism does only refer to Jews, which if she is racist towards Jews makes her antisemitic.
Seriously this is one some of the left are racist that they cannot understand something so simple.
The views still stand and it is of no surprise the other left wing extremist excuses racism when it is other lefties

Brasadis should I be considering giving you a warning FOR BEING Anti Semitic ???
should I stand for your Racist prejudice against Ethiopians should I not insist you Stop posting you Anti Semitic hate speech?

I don't know why you hate the poor ethnicities so much BUT they are and have every right to call themselves Semitics as the Semitics in Ethiopia are More 'full blood' Semitic than the current citizens of Israel.

veya_victaous wrote:Brasadis should I be considering giving you a warning FOR BEING Anti Semitic ???
should I stand for your Racist prejudice against Ethiopians should I not insist you Stop posting you Anti Semitic hate speech?

I don't know why you hate the poor ethnicities so much BUT they are and have every right to call themselves Semitics as the Semitics in Ethiopia are More 'full blood' Semitic than the current citizens of Israel.

Abusing your powers like the other left wing extremists, where you are losing a debate and now you state to offer me a warning on no racism I have offered
Show me anywhere on this forum where I have been antisemitic to Ethiopians and then take this to the moderation team and if they agree you can happily issue me with a warning. In fact you have to offer up any evidence where you claim I have been antisemitic, where at least I did by showing your ignorance on antisemitism
If not you have to apologise for making up something I never even stated.

I have stated quite categorically that Ethiopian Jews are both Ethiopians and Jews, so again how is that being antisemitic.

Do not forget to take this charge of yours on issuing a warning to the moderation team Veya, I expect an answer within 24 hours.

Laters

WHY DO YOU keep insisting on posting these boring English-centric propaganda pieces from English Zionist blog sites, Dodgeri' ~  ESPECIALLY considering that most members on here won't even read past the first couple of irrelevant, non-factual and misleading paragraphs  !?!

HOW MANY times do you have to be told !
OUTSIDE of England, it is often more usual that the "left wing" are the usual supporters of Jews and other minority religions..
WHEREAS it is the "Far Right" militants and neo-nazi xenophobe groups who are the main attackers and antagonists of the Jewish communities in many countries...

ESPECIALLY in places like Australia, NZ, USA, Canada, South Africa, and many of our neighbours..    

Lone Wolf wrote:

WHY DO YOU keep insisting on posting these boring English-centric propaganda pieces from English Zionist blog sites, Dodgeri' ~  ESPECIALLY considering that most members on here won't even read past the first couple of irrelevant, non-factual and misleading paragraphs  !?!

HOW MANY times do you have to be told !
OUTSIDE of England, it is often more usual that the "left wing" are the usual supporters of Jews and other minority religions..
WHEREAS it is the "Far Right" militants and neo-nazi xenophobe groups who are the main attackers and antagonists of the Jewish communities in many countries...

ESPECIALLY in places like Australia, NZ, USA, Canada, South Africa, and many of our neighbours..    

I think you need to go to specsavers Bee, as this is from a left wing anti Israel site
So it shows how you need to understand what is being written and I am not concerned at which wet lefties refuse to understand antisemitism being as I very much trying to educate them and on those who on this site are proponents of antisemitism, which at present two of them have been exposed.
In fact the biggest antisemitics are Muslims, the left and far right.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Veya found it easy enough, some posters are just very lazy it seems in looking

That's it then. The charges of antisemitism against members on here are dropped due to the lack of evidence.

So abusing your position of a moderator again.
You do not get to decide what is dropped because you fail to condemn their racism.
I have provided plenty of evidence of which you choose to ignore.
One of which was easily proven over where both fail to even understand antisemitism and confusing it around the broader context of being antisemitic. Antisemitism is one area of antisemitic and as above Sassy has proven her complete ignorance on this and why she is the worst racist on this forum. If she is a proponent of antisemitism that makes her part of the broader group of being antisemitic, next she will be telling me the Nazi's were not antisemitic she is that ignorant. Nobody claimed Semitic only refereed to Jews, but antisemitism does only refer to Jews, which if she is racist towards Jews makes her antisemitic.
Seriously this is one some of the left are racist that they cannot understand something so simple.
The views still stand and it is of no surprise the other left wing extremist excuses racism when it is other lefties

You're getting too emotional over this Didge. It's my opinion not a moderator binding decision.

All part of forum life.

Chill out mate - I promise I won't ask you for the evidence again.

Brasidas wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Brasadis should I be considering giving you a warning FOR BEING Anti Semitic ???
should I stand for your Racist prejudice against Ethiopians should I not insist you Stop posting you Anti Semitic hate speech?

I don't know why you hate the poor ethnicities so much BUT they are and have every right to call themselves Semitics as the Semitics in Ethiopia are More 'full blood' Semitic than the current citizens of Israel.

Abusing your powers like the other left wing extremists, where you are losing a debate and now you state to offer me a warning on no racism I have offered I asked a question so that is abusing power I said "Should I"
Show me anywhere on this forum where I have been antisemitic to Ethiopians and then take this to the moderation team and if they agree you can happily issue me with a warning. In fact you have to offer up any evidence where you claim I have been antisemitic, where at least I did by showing your ignorance on antisemitism
If not you have to apologise for making up something I never even stated.

I have stated quite categorically that Ethiopian Jews are both Ethiopians and Jews, so again how is that being antisemitic.

Ethiopian Semitics are not Jewish, most are Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox Christians today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habesha_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Orthodox_Tewahedo_Church

Semitic DOES NOT MEAN Jewish there are other Semitic people that ARE NOT Jewish.

It is just supporting the destruction of the Coptic, the Habesha and some Palestinians to deny THEY ARE Semitic too.


You are being Anti-Semitic to All but one group of Semitics

You really are pig shit ignorant Veya and cannot follow at all what was stated.
I said Ethopian Jews.
You then invent things yet again I did not say.
Please get yourself to the nearest doctor for testing because again you clearly are mentally insane as seen by your answer, none of which detracts from the fact you are a self serving antisemitic

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So abusing your position of a moderator again.
You do not get to decide what is dropped because you fail to condemn their racism.
I have provided plenty of evidence of which you choose to ignore.
One of which was easily proven over where both fail to even understand antisemitism and confusing it around the broader context of being antisemitic. Antisemitism is one area of antisemitic and as above Sassy has proven her complete ignorance on this and why she is the worst racist on this forum. If she is a proponent of antisemitism that makes her part of the broader group of being antisemitic, next she will be telling me the Nazi's were not antisemitic she is that ignorant. Nobody claimed Semitic only refereed to Jews, but antisemitism does only refer to Jews, which if she is racist towards Jews makes her antisemitic.
Seriously this is one some of the left are racist that they cannot understand something so simple.
The views still stand and it is of no surprise the other left wing extremist excuses racism when it is other lefties

You're getting too emotional over this Didge. It's my opinion not a moderator binding decision.

All part of forum life.

Chill out mate - I promise I won't ask you for the evidence again.

Not emotional at all which is another of your infantile tactics Irn, which shows beyond doubt you have no vested interested in any intelligent debate and are nothing more than a child, but hey ho, when you have something of intelligence to add, let me know, because you are that utterly boring. I have given evidence of which you refused to even comment on, which proves just how disingenuous you really are, but we already know that

You are ignorant you fucktard. ALL These Minorities are complaining about being Marginalise BY JEWISH Semites trying to remove them from their Semitic heritage. Israel has even been Caught Sterilising them for no reason other than Eugenics!!!!

Semitic Ethiopians Are ONE of the ethnicities living in Ethiopia (Majority is 'Kush') THEY ARE NOT JEWISH never have been they are separate people and have been since ancient Egypt. they are the Habesha people one of the oldest groups of Semitics still around.

veya_victaous wrote:You are ignorant you fucktard. ALL These Minorities are complaining about being Marginalise BY JEWISH Semites trying to remove them from their Semitic heritage. Israel has even been Caught Sterilising them for no reason other than Eugenics!!!!  

Semitic Ethiopians Are ONE of the ethnicities living in Ethiopia (Majority is 'Kush')  THEY ARE NOT JEWISH never have been they are separate people and have been since ancient Egypt. they are the Habesha people one of the oldest groups of Semitics still around.

You have changed the direction and moved the goal posts of what was being discussed and even worse you look an even bigger idiot after I proved your accusation was unfounded. At no point have I denied that in some cases some Jews are racist, but antisemitism is very much centered around racism and discrimination to Jews, based on the very fact of how it was invented. Now the very fact this has diverged from you being the one trying to deny a Jewish identity on her first of all wrongly claiming antisemitism was only in regards to Judaisms, proves you are thick as shit.
Jewish Ethiopians are both Ethiopians and Jews, proving yet more evidence of your antisemitism.
I never spoke of other Ethiopians which there are many different also ethnic groups and religious groups proving again how desperate you are  to detract from your antisemitism

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So abusing your position of a moderator again.
You do not get to decide what is dropped because you fail to condemn their racism.
I have provided plenty of evidence of which you choose to ignore.
One of which was easily proven over where both fail to even understand antisemitism and confusing it around the broader context of being antisemitic. Antisemitism is one area of antisemitic and as above Sassy has proven her complete ignorance on this and why she is the worst racist on this forum. If she is a proponent of antisemitism that makes her part of the broader group of being antisemitic, next she will be telling me the Nazi's were not antisemitic she is that ignorant. Nobody claimed Semitic only refereed to Jews, but antisemitism does only refer to Jews, which if she is racist towards Jews makes her antisemitic.
Seriously this is one some of the left are racist that they cannot understand something so simple.
The views still stand and it is of no surprise the other left wing extremist excuses racism when it is other lefties

You're getting too emotional over this Didge. It's my opinion not a moderator binding decision.

All part of forum life.

Chill out mate - I promise I won't ask you for the evidence again.

Not emotional at all which is another of your infantile tactics Irn, which shows beyond doubt you have no vested interested in any intelligent debate and are nothing more than a child, but hey ho, when you have something of intelligence to add, let me know, because you are that utterly boring. I have given evidence of which you refused to even comment on, which proves just how disingenuous you really are, but we already know that

Well I can hardly comment on evidence that I haven't seen and despite asking several times you just refuse to show it to me.

Tum te tum te tum te tum

veya_victaous wrote:You are ignorant you fucktard. ALL These Minorities are complaining about being Marginalise BY JEWISH Semites trying to remove them from their Semitic heritage. Israel has even been Caught Sterilising them for no reason other than Eugenics!!!!  

Semitic Ethiopians Are ONE of the ethnicities living in Ethiopia (Majority is 'Kush')  THEY ARE NOT JEWISH never have been they are separate people and have been since ancient Egypt. they are the Habesha people one of the oldest groups of Semitics still around.

Don't know why you bother Veya, Israel could torture and kill every person in the world and he would still support them. You correct in your wording apart from one thing. Ignorant Egotistical Fucktard.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Not emotional at all which is another of your infantile tactics Irn, which shows beyond doubt you have no vested interested in any intelligent debate and are nothing more than a child, but hey ho, when you have something of intelligence to add, let me know, because you are that utterly boring. I have given evidence of which you refused to even comment on, which proves just how disingenuous you really are, but we already know that

Well I can hardly comment on evidence that I haven't seen and despite asking several times you just refuse to show it to me.

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Lies again, I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity and with Sassy who has compared Israel to Nazi's, ISIS and Apartheid let alone claiming the Palestinians should have all the land and does this arguing over the origins of the lands, thus trying to deny self determination of the Jews

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Did you get the text message alright for support then being as you got back from the pub quick enough ha ha ha ha

risingsun wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:You are ignorant you fucktard. ALL These Minorities are complaining about being Marginalise BY JEWISH Semites trying to remove them from their Semitic heritage. Israel has even been Caught Sterilising them for no reason other than Eugenics!!!!  

Semitic Ethiopians Are ONE of the ethnicities living in Ethiopia (Majority is 'Kush')  THEY ARE NOT JEWISH never have been they are separate people and have been since ancient Egypt. they are the Habesha people one of the oldest groups of Semitics still around.

Don't know why you bother Veya, Israel could torture and kill every person in the world and he would still support them.  You correct in your wording apart from one thing.   Ignorant Egotistical Fucktard.

Lies again, where again I have condemn Israel Governments for its settlements and if and where it may have committed war crimes, but hey sassy you do not deal in facts do you and like here cannot refute the facts, but then I have exposed you for being antisemitic

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Not emotional at all which is another of your infantile tactics Irn, which shows beyond doubt you have no vested interested in any intelligent debate and are nothing more than a child, but hey ho, when you have something of intelligence to add, let me know, because you are that utterly boring. I have given evidence of which you refused to even comment on, which proves just how disingenuous you really are, but we already know that

Well I can hardly comment on evidence that I haven't seen and despite asking several times you just refuse to show it to me.

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Lies again, I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity and with Sassy who has compared Israel to Nazi's, ISIS and Apartheid let alone claiming the Palestinians should have all the land and does this arguing over the origins of the lands, thus trying to deny self determination of the Jews

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Did you get the text message alright for support then being as you got back from the pub quick enough ha ha ha ha

Show me where I claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Not emotional at all which is another of your infantile tactics Irn, which shows beyond doubt you have no vested interested in any intelligent debate and are nothing more than a child, but hey ho, when you have something of intelligence to add, let me know, because you are that utterly boring. I have given evidence of which you refused to even comment on, which proves just how disingenuous you really are, but we already know that

Well I can hardly comment on evidence that I haven't seen and despite asking several times you just refuse to show it to me.

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Ah well! Normal service resumed then. All Palestine is asking is that Israel returns to it's 1967 borders, not even asking for it to return to the official 1948 borders. I fail to see how they can justifying doing anything else. All the land they have taken since 67 is illegal under international law. Why aren't Israel satisfied with the 1967 borders?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Lies again, I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity and with Sassy who has compared Israel to Nazi's, ISIS and Apartheid let alone claiming the Palestinians should have all the land and does this arguing over the origins of the lands, thus trying to deny self determination of the Jews

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Did you get the text message alright for support then being as you got back from the pub quick enough ha ha ha ha

Show me where I claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity?

Never claimed you, this is what veya claimed.

I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

Sorry this should have read and can see your confusion:

I am debating with one now who claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

risingsun wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Well I can hardly comment on evidence that I haven't seen and despite asking several times you just refuse to show it to me.

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Ah well!  Normal service resumed then.  All Palestine is asking is that Israel returns to it's 1967 borders, not even asking for it to return to the official 1948 borders.   I fail to see how they can justifying doing anything else.  All the land they have taken since 67 is illegal under international law.   Why aren't Israel satisfied with the 1967 borders?

Where as seen we know this is balderdash being as they have been offered a state 3 times and have turned it down, it is tie to stop this complete sham in regards to lies being claimed which I have easily disproved
Why is it Sassy 3 times they have not accepted a settlement to give them a nation?
In your own time

Palestinians Rejected Statehood Three Times, Claim Frustration -- with Israel

Palestinian spokesmen from PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas on down have expressed their frustration with the Oslo peace process, charging that it failed and is dead, thanks to alleged Israeli intransigence, and that therefore they have no choice but to go to the United Nations to seek full membership and therefore statehood.

 

It should be noted at the outset that for the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood, or even to take the issue to the United Nations, would be a grave violation of the PLO's signed agreements with Israel, which explicitly barred such unilateral actions and appeals to outside parties. All of these agreements were also witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU, etc. If any of these countries now go along with material violations of agreements that they witnessed, that would raise serious questions about the worth of such agreements and the worth of such witnessing.

 

As for Palestinian frustration, they may indeed be frustrated with more than 18 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, but the question is with whom should they be frustrated – Israel, or their own leaders? For the fact is, just as the legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.

 

Why do the Palestinians refuse a negotiated peace? Because a negotiated peace means the end of the conflict, or at least promising to end the conflict and accept Israel. But the Palestinian leadership wants a state so that they can continue the conflict from a stronger position. In particular, they want a state and they want to keep pressing in every way for the "right of return" to Israel.
 
Israel would not agree to that in negotiations, which is why Palestinians want a state without negotiations, and without having to make any compromises.

In accord with this, at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them, most recently just a few years ago. Here are the details:

1. In 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem.

Numerous settlements including Ofra, Elon Moreh, Beit El and Kiryat Arba would have been evacuated, and Hebron would have been abandoned. Tens of thousands of settlers would have been uprooted. Olmert even says preliminary agreement had been reached with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian claim to a "right of return."

Olmert recounted much of this in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper:

From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.
On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years...
And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]
He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)

And this is not just a self-serving claim by Olmert – Abbas, in an interview with Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, confirmed the outlines of the Olmert offer and that he turned it down:

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. (May 29, 2009)

Ha'aretz published Olmert's map, showing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with a free passage route to connect them. The map, which also showed the Israeli territory that would have been swapped with the Palestinians in return for annexing some Israeli settlements to Israel, is reproduced below:


 

2. In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters, which was similar to the later Olmert Plan, though not quite as extensive.

Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada).

Despite the violence, Prime Minister Barak continued to negotiate to the end of his term, culminating in an Israeli proposal at Taba which extended the Clinton proposal. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview:

... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)

According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Clinton Parameters, but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said:

Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

Here's the Taba map proposed by Israel, which was once again turned down by Arafat:


3. UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.

The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.

The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.

Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.

Besides the above statehood opportunities, there were other notable opportunities that were missed too, such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which provided for Palestinian autonomy in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat begged the PLO and Yasir Arafat to accept what he had negotiated with Israel, and to engage in talks with Israel. President Carter also called on moderate Palestinians to come forward and join the Cairo conference. Unfortunately Arafat refused and did everything he could to undermine Sadat and the Camp David Accords, with PLO gunmen even murdering West Bank Palestinians who supported Sadat's approach.

 

While the Palestinian people have much to be frustrated about, the object of their frustration should be not Israel, but their own leaders, who have thrown away opportunity after opportunity to establish the Palestinian state they claim to desire above all else.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Lies again, I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity and with Sassy who has compared Israel to Nazi's, ISIS and Apartheid let alone claiming the Palestinians should have all the land and does this arguing over the origins of the lands, thus trying to deny self determination of the Jews

Tum te tum te tum te tum

Did you get the text message alright for support then being as you got back from the pub quick enough ha ha ha ha

Show me where I claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity?

Never claimed you, this is what veya claimed.

I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

Sorry this should have read and can see your confusion:

I am debating with one now who claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

You did. You quite clearly said in a reply to me

you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity

Just admit you got mixed up and I'll leave it at that.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Never claimed you, this is what veya claimed.

I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

Sorry this should have read and can see your confusion:

I am debating with one now who claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

You did. You quite clearly said in a reply to me

you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity

Just admit you got mixed up and I'll leave it at that.

Oh my how desperate, one word was typed in error and now you make the most idiotic view point and I have made it clear I meant Veya, anything else lefty?
So you have your evidence, time you started to refute my claims, though how you will do that with Veya should be fun

In your own time son.

Only Racists say "Anti-Semitism is centres around Jews" the LEAST Discriminated against Semitic group. the richest and most powerful group of Semitics!!!

Yes Brasidas Pretty sure you proved your point Racist fuck
You wish to deny the existence of Semitics that are not Jewish !!!
You wish to deny that they are being persecuted and You cover for one of the main persecutors of Semitics.

You are trying to ignore the of Poor poverty stricken Semitics and only care about the Rich ones Typical RW Racist behaviour Foreign people only matter if they have money !!!!

veya_victaous wrote:Only Racists say "Anti-Semitism is centres around Jews" the LEAST Discriminated against Semitic group. the richest and most powerful group of Semitics!!!

Yes Brasidas Pretty sure you proved your point Racist fuck
You wish to deny the existence of Semitics that are not Jewish !!!
You wish to deny that they are being persecuted and You cover for one of the main persecutors of Semitics.

You are trying to ignore the of Poor poverty stricken Semitics and only care about the Rich ones Typical RW Racist behaviour Foreign people only matter if they have money !!!!

Really since when Veya?
I think you best tell that to all the human rights lawyers then if you think they are also racist then Veya
As to the rest of your infantile post it proves beyond doubt you are one nasty Jew hater which has been proven beyond doubt with your views to deny the identity of Jews themselves, something you accused me of being racist over denying religious views of Muslims, which is not even racist. So you need to make up your mind as your arguments contradict
I am not ignoring any Semitics at all, as again you fail to understand the history of antisemitism which has been provided for you to only ignore this evidence.
Show me anywhere on here that I have denied Semitic people their identity?
Show me where I have denied them being persecuted
In your own time loony tunes
As I say it is the far right we have to worry about with antisemitism, it is the far left

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Never claimed you, this is what veya claimed.

I am debating with one now you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

Sorry this should have read and can see your confusion:

I am debating with one now who claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism

You did. You quite clearly said in a reply to me

you claimed antisemitism was only in regards to Judaism and denied Jewish identity

Just admit you got mixed up and I'll leave it at that.

Oh my how desperate, one word was typed in error and now you make the most idiotic view point and I have made it clear I meant Veya, anything else lefty?
So you have your evidence, time you started to refute my claims, though how you will do that with Veya should be fun

In your own time son.

You made a mistake.

Thank you

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Oh my how desperate, one word was typed in error and now you make the most idiotic view point and I have made it clear I meant Veya, anything else lefty?
So you have your evidence, time you started to refute my claims, though how you will do that with Veya should be fun

In your own time son.

You made a mistake.

Thank you

Never denied I did, which you tried and failed to make a big deal out of, ha ha

For Veya:


anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27646/anti-Semitism

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Oh my how desperate, one word was typed in error and now you make the most idiotic view point and I have made it clear I meant Veya, anything else lefty?
So you have your evidence, time you started to refute my claims, though how you will do that with Veya should be fun

In your own time son.

You made a mistake.

Thank you

Never denied I did, which you tried and failed to make a big deal out of, ha ha

I never said you denied it. All I'm saying is that you made a mistake and you have now admitted that you have for which I thanked you.

It's really quite simple.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Never denied I did, which you tried and failed to make a big deal out of, ha ha

I never said you denied it. All I'm saying is that you made a mistake and you have now admitted that you have for which I thanked you.

It's really quite simple.

Which is nothing more than you detracting from the debate, so you have nothing left to add, off you go then and thanks for your irrelevant input

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Never denied I did, which you tried and failed to make a big deal out of, ha ha

I never said you denied it. All I'm saying is that you made a mistake and you have now admitted that you have for which I thanked you.

It's really quite simple.

Which is nothing more than you detracting from the debate, so you have nothing left to add, off you go then and thanks for your irrelevant input

Well I could add to this debate further if only you would produce the evidence I have asked for. Have you got it?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Which is nothing more than you detracting from the debate, so you have nothing left to add, off you go then and thanks for your irrelevant input

Well I could add to this debate further if only you would produce the evidence I have asked for. Have you got it?

And we are back to the little boy avoiding the evidence, run along little boy and stop wasting my time with your infantile games

Brasidas wrote:For Veya:


anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/27646/anti-Semitism

READ YOUR OWN DEFINITION

Clearly Says German Anti Semitism refers to Jews (because they are the Semitics that were living in Germany), but Anti Semitism Means Anti Larger group of people called Semitics and using it as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices is inappropriate