Islamofascism is a completely appropriate term.

The only thing I would object to is when you seem to imply that it could apply to all Palestinians ("The Palestinians as a people...").

It should not. But those who embrace the stuff you describe, and many do, deserve the term.

Of course the Palestinian's political plight against Israel is also a bit more credible than was the beef that the German had against the Jews in the 30's. But that's no excuse. A political fight need not become racism, or it loses all credibility. In short, they're not helping themselves.

And they wonder why the world looks at them as animals.

S,C& A: No, history teaches us that such as these are all-too human. Animals don't pull this kind of nonsense.

Superfrenchie... the word Versailles mean anything to you? Lots of people thought the Germans' complaint was very legitimate. Which it may have been - but the Strumsoldaten song above was sung early on by Nazi brownshirts in the streets, and there were many who heard it. Fatah, whose icon considered Hitler's genocidal ally the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem his mentor and a lodestar of his life, is no different. And the number that did not vote for either Fatah or Hamas is not large at all.

The Germans could not credibly claim ignorance of what was to come, nor pretend that their vote hadn't been a vote for evil. They just thought they'd win, and it wouldn't matter. Then, as with their counterparts now.

In both cases, too, the greivance is a pretext. The Jew is simply the symbol of the fascists' real hate. As I've noted before they stare at their shattered idols, and blame the same set of demons for the destruction of their false gods: the demons of capitalism, of modernity, of cosmopolitanism and the bourgeois mentality. And what do you get when you cross these things? Symbolically, you get Jews... and incidentally, you also get America.

This is about pretext, not addressable grievances. Pretexts fed by evil pride and thwarted supremacism, and carefully cultivated via organized hate.

And those that begin with the Jews - now, as then - did not and will not end there.

Joe Katzman: //Lots of people thought the Germans' complaint was very legitimate. Which it may have been//

Their complaint against the Jews? Having to do with Versailles? I don't think so. Hitler's complaint against the Jews is that they were subhumans (untermenschen). That's it. The fact that they were born, that's what was wrong with the Jews in Hitler's view.

By contrast, whether you agree with it or not, Palestinians plight against Israel is not based on the fact that Jews exist, but that they are living on their native land. That is a contentious issue, and we agree that some Palestinians have the same racist complaint as the Germans (that Jews exist). But the origin of the conflict is not pure racism.

Superfrenchie, now you are deliberately missing Joe's point, misrepresenting the relevant history and it is obvious to all.

Robin Roberts: //you are deliberately missing Joe's point, misrepresenting the relevant history and it is obvious to all.//

Huh? I may be missing his point. That would not be the first time I misunderstand something. But I can assure you that I am not doing it deliberately. I may be an idiot, but I am not purposefully an idiot.

If you feel that I am beyond hope, no need to explain what I may have missed. But if you think there's a glimmer of hope, go ahead and tell me what I'm not getting about the Versailles relationship to the German's view of the Jews.

#6

The only point your missing, my friend, is that RR fancies herself the political sniper on this site, firing propaganda and idiocy at posters like yourself who raise perfectly reasonable and civil questions that might make the proprietors look like the shallow reactionaries that they are.

It's best to ignore her...she's an awful shot, and she'll run and hide before engaging you face-to-face.

I think you (superfrenchie and Joe) are both making good points. Super, what you said about "how many" is really the weakest link.

But those who embrace the stuff you describe, and many do, deserve the term.
I believe there are more, many more, Palestinian Islamofacists than in other parts of the Arab countries. And I do think Super is right about the land thing - it's an issue and gives the Palestinians some focus that the Germans didn't have. Seeing a race as evil was enough for Germans and, as Joe said,
The Germans were, if anything, less virulent. The Palestinians are more focused, I think, but - again, as Joe says,
have much less power to carry out their fondest desires.

Though with the help of MSM and AlJezeera they are making their lack of power less of a problem.

The issue SF is are legit territorial aspirations justification for racial/religious hatred verging into genocidal rhetoric and the attempts to put that into action?

I hold no brief for the IRA (loathesome and despicable racketeers) but even they have not verged into this awful rhetoric. Nor have they had as the official goal the destruction of the United Kingdom.

If your stated goals and rhetoric allow for no compromise, then violence is never going to stop. Until there is a bloodbath; and the fundamental goals of one party or both change.

Jim Rockford: //are legit territorial aspirations justification for racial/religious hatred verging into genocidal rhetoric and the attempts to put that into action?//

I'm not sure if the question is just rhetorical or one for which you expect an answer, but just so RR or anybody would not misunderstand my position, I'll answer anyway.

NO!

There is no justification for racial/religious hatred.

What I said is that their political plight might have credibility. Not their racial one. I am willing to listen to those (yes, they exist) who keep it at a political level. Not to those who use the political issue for racial purposes.

Muslims should recall that Israel has thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs to the uninformed). These make A-bombs look like firecrackers. One per capital would effectively end Muslim civilization in the Middle East. Push Israel into a corner and tell your children to duck and cover, for what that would be worth.

Superfrenchie,

You, of all folks, should recall the Germans' complaints that led to World War 2. The most severe was Versailles, which it was argued caused them to live in sub-standard conditions with little hope and bred resentment. Call it the "poverty breeds fanaticism" argument, because you hear much of the same today. Especially re: the Palestinians.

The second element was the fatherland. Including those Germanic peoples who were living under foreign occupation (Austia, Sudetenland, Poland) rather than as part of the German nation.

Hamas, too, is part of a movement to reclaim parts of the Arab fatherland that have been polluted by sub-human outsiders, backed to the hilt by the countries (multiple in this case) that make up the Arab fatherland and for precisely this reason. The Arab/Islamic Fatherland must be preserved, and when enough Jewish blood splashes and their suicide stormtroopers are done making the area Judenrein, all will be well.

The next step is global supremacism and one's "rightful place." In one case, the rightful place of Germany as leader of Europe and hence the world. In the Islamists' case, the rightful place of Islam and shari'a as the world's governing religion and law.

From failure, to fatherland, to fantasies of global domination, it's all there. Linked, in both cases, to genocidal death cults that glorify blood and exalt hate.

And so we come back to the point re: intentions and programs announced in advance, and songs sung in public that leave no doubt at all what one is really voting for. Mussolini, after all, did make the trains run on time. Hitler did improve the German economy. But that wasn't all people were voting for - and while they were loath to admit this after they had lost, they cannot reasonably say that they didn't know.

Stiggy writes: who raise perfectly reasonable and civil questions that might make the proprietors look like the shallow reactionaries that they are.

No doubt the irony of your own behavior escapes you, Stiggy.

Iran and the un-educated Muslims are in a 5 year old mentality with less than adequate growth into modern Humans.

Control is easy in the middle east because the more uneducated your society is the easier it is control the minds and actions of your people. Iran as well as many other clerics if you can call them that, easily enjoy the comfort of keeping the public basically stupid so they can not process the actual actions they are doing. The outward revolt against a cartoon most could not understand if they tried is like a bunch of children with no thought of there own running around throwing a fit.

The sad thing about it is, the freedom of speech issue is a problem and freedom of action in America due to the other ill society, the Liberals, has gone way over board in making freedom about self versus respecting others. Freedom was supposed to be about doing and being free to improve society, not just about saying and doing as you please.

Unfortunately we have two major problems here. We have a bunch of little children running around pushing to start a religous respect war and the older smarter idiot child running around sticking there tung out and saying I can do what I want because I am free and your not.

So who will win, the stomping baby or the yelling one?? I believe we all lose with war not to far in the future.

Idiots are pushing the envelope of our world. Liberals vs. illiterates.

AFR

The Koran deserves to be burnt like the American Flag has been in the past and the Liberals deserve to be shot like the bomber crossing the imprisoned palistinians line into the Jewish controlling anti-freedom pushers that they are.

Too bad for the good Muslims, Christians and other religions around the world. We pay for the embarassing few.

posted by Anthonyrio at 9:49 AM | 0 comments

Where the heck did that last quote come from?!?

I'll add that while Arab/Muslim societies are global laggards in education levels, the history of the last century has taught us that this is not in fact a requirement. Germany being a prime example, but by no means the only one. And since you mentioned Iran, many Iranians are educated but B.A.s don't stop bullets.

Uneducated populations are a factor in this war on multiple levels, therefore, but probably not in the ways that you think.

I'll add that there has been a fair bit of thought behind this little "revolt," mostly coming from people with an adult mindset (albeit one you may not like) and on average a fairly high level of education. Unless you count all religious people as child-like, of course. Some would take that as a compliment, and others would not, but in most cases it will not help you understand or prescribe.

As such, analysis that focuses on your "child-like, uneducated" enemy is likely to fail.

One very good quote in the mish-mash, though:

"Idiots are pushing the envelope of our world"

Ain't that the truth.

Ummm...ok...

Germans under Hitler...Palestinians...no wait..I don't get it.

Someone wanna tell me EXACTLY what a Palestinian is, how they got there and why Jordan isn't a bigger culprit than Israel?

Take a look at the lands divided up according to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and remind me why everything EAST of current day Israel is never really discussed.

By the way did you know that the Jerusalem Post was formerly the Palestine Post?

These people are Arabs...yet no Arabs claim them...whats up with that?

Superfrenchie, The Jews may have actually had nothing to do with Versailles, but in Hitler's mind, the Germans lost the war because the Jews stabbed them in the back. He also blamed Jewish capitalists for Versailles: Germany was humiliated and impoverished to line the pockets of Jewish bankers yada yada yada. He was, of course, nuts, but the point is, in Hitler's mind and the minds of many Germans there was a clear and absolute connection between the Jews and Versailles.

Of course the Palestinian's political plight against Israel is also a bit more credible than was the beef that the German had against the Jews in the 30's.

Is it more credible now than it was in 1948, when Palestinians joined five Arab nations in the attempted murder of Israel?

Iomegaman -

Thank you !! Thanks You !! Thank You !!

That's what i've been tryin to explain to alot of 'tards at my job.

Most of the lib-tards dont realize that the nations of Syria-1946,
Jordan-1946,Iraq-1932, Iran-1935, etc. were 20th century creations...

If you go by the amount of Land that was divided up to create all these
nations it is easy to see that the people who got shafted were the Jews.

Nevermind that all of the territory known as "Palestine" was under
the rule of the "Ottoman Empire" (Turkish empire) and the only reason
that the current Arabic nations are there now is because the Turks
allied with the Germans during World War One and the Brits kicked their Arses.

Then the Arabs sided with Germany - during WW-II -- and well - they lost.

Jordan - kicked their Arab bothers - the "palestinian refugees" - out of Jordan.

It doesnt take a genius to figure out the reason why.

Anyway - here's a couple of pretty good links
if any of you are interested in reading about the history
of the Region of Palestine and how all this came about...
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/middle_east_1917_to_1973.htm
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

... did you know that the Jerusalem Post was formerly the Palestine Post?

... did you know that the Jerusalem Post was formerly the Palestine Post?

I'm not surprised, because I knew that the people calling themselves Palestinians in the first half of the 20th century were Jews.

There is much more than a coincidental similarity between German fascism and islamic fascism. Islamic fascism started in tandem with naziism. One of the primary links between the two is Amin Al-Husseini

Now, the fatherland is the umma.

The brownshirts are the islamists, whose job it is to intimidate the populace and host governments through fear and violence.

Propaganda and agitation are used to incite the masses against the enemy/outsiders and instil pride in the fatherland/umma. Do the underpinnings of the current "cartoon" riots look like kristalnacht?

Supremacy through jihad, redemption through blood.

"Hitler's complaint against the Jews is that they were subhumans (untermenschen). That's it. The fact that they were born, that's what was wrong with the Jews in Hitler's view.

By contrast, whether you agree with it or not, Palestinians plight against Israel is not based on the fact that Jews exist, but that they are living on their native land."

There is a good deal of evidence that the Islamists believe that the Jews are subhuman, and that what is wrong with the Jews is that they have been born and are living anywhere and not just in Israel. Yes, it is an interesting question of whether they came to this conclusion because of thier conflict with Israel, or whether they came into conflict with Israel because of the pre-existance of such beliefs. However, I think it is extremely weak to claim that Nazi racism and Arab racism are fundamentally different.

For one thing, its another interesting question to what extent Hitler's anti-Jewish literature influenced the Arab view of the Jews in the 20th century. Certainly he found in Islam and Arabia many natural allies - Haj Amin Al-Hesseini.

celebrim: /I think it is extremely weak to claim that Nazi racism and Arab racism are fundamentally different.//

I did not say that. Racism is racism. You're entirely correct.

"There is a good deal of evidence that the Islamists believe that the Jews are subhuman, and that what is wrong with the Jews is that they have been born and are living anywhere and not just in Israel."

Have you ever lived in Israel? What do you think of the racism of the Jews there (towards the arabs and towards non-Ashkenazi Jews)? When I made my aliyah and lived on a kibbutz for a year I was absolutely horrified at the ways in which everyone in that area looked down upon each other. And if you don't think that there are plenty of Israelis who would love nothing more than to exterminate the "Palestinian vermin" than you either have no clue about the state of things there or you are willfully ignorant.

"Have you ever lived in Israel?"

No.

"What do you think of the racism of the Jews there (towards the arabs and towards non-Ashkenazi Jews)?"

I think of it in the same way that I think of all racism.

"When I made my aliyah and lived on a kibbutz for a year I was absolutely horrified at the ways in which everyone in that area looked down upon each other."

That tends to happen when ethnic groups fail to integrate. I had the same experience with Philadelphia.

"And if you don't think that there are plenty of Israelis who would love nothing more than to exterminate the "Palestinian vermin" than you either have no clue about the state of things there or you are willfully ignorant."

I'm afraid I don't see how this is particularly relevant. If their are 'plenty' of Israeli racists, it doesn't follow that Islamofascism is a
non-descriptive term. If one side is bad, it doesn't imply that the other side is good - or vica versa.

I don't think that there is a qualitative difference between Jewish racists and Arab racists. But I do think that there is a quantitative difference than can be seen expressed in several ways. The strength of the opposition to racist groups in Israel is much stronger than the strength of the opposition to racist groups in Palestine (or any other predominately Arab area). The Israeli's are far more self-critical. The official school books in Israel are much less racist and far more tolerant and multicultural than the school books used in Palestine under the Palestinian authority. In fact, changing the school books was one of the many provisions of Oslo that the PA saw fit to completely ignore. The media in Israel is far less racist in its portrayal of Palestianians, than the Palestianian media is in its portrayal of Jews. The free participation of Moslem Arabs in the Jewish government is alot higher than the participation of Jews in the Palestianian government. Yes, there are certainly some racists in Israel and some of these are probably as bad as any on the other side, but in Israel we are talking about a minority position (arguably a small minority position, although one not nearly as marginal as one would like) whereas on the other side we are talking about a majority position (arguably an overwhelming majority position).

BTW, "no clue about the state of things" and "willfully ignorant" would seem like a redundancy to me. Anyway, I found your responce to my claim that the Palestinians were racist extremely interesting.

"If their are 'plenty' of Israeli racists, it doesn't follow that Islamofascism is a non-descriptive term."

True. Wasn't my point, but true enough. The reason that I brought it up is that many people, when discussing Israel and Arabs, tend to think that American and Israeli shit smells like roses. If you don't fine, you're intellectually honest, and I applaud you for it.

"But I do think that there is a quantitative difference than can be seen expressed in several ways. The strength of the opposition to racist groups in Israel is much stronger than the strength of the opposition to racist groups in Palestine"

That's funny, because A) you've never been to Israel, and B) I rarely saw opposition to racism.

The qualitative difference, between the Israeli's and the Palestinians, is that Israelis have all of the guns, and all of the power. Therefore, when Israel decided that the best defense against Palestinian extremists was to turn the entire west bank into one large ghetto, they could do so. All the Palestinians can do is blow themselves to bits, taking innocent Israelis with them.

However- I won't argue that the Israeli schools are less critical, though I do think that it's a bit harder to be critical when you're teaching out of a tin-roofed hut in the middle of a refugee camp. The fact that the schools are funded by extremists in the WB doesn't help at all, which is a problem all over the muslim world.

"The free participation of Moslem Arabs in the Jewish government is alot higher than the participation of Jews in the Palestianian government."

True.

"Yes, there are certainly some racists in Israel and some of these are probably as bad as any on the other side, but in Israel we are talking about a minority position"

There's the part that's just plain wrong. As to whether it's willfully ignorant, a cognitive bias or just a result of the fact that you've never even visited, let alone lived, in the area. The fact that you compared it to Philly shows just how little you know about Israel- which is almost incomparably racist.

BTW- did you know I was from Philly, or was that just chance?

Keep going, Alex, I think you missed a couple of moral equivalency excuses in your attempt to deny the situation.

You hate Israel, Alex. Fine. Consider that quite a few of us may actually know Israelis, have relatives there, etc. and be aware that your radical agitprop is, to put it kindly, full of shit. Your life-changing discovery that people form cliques and in-groups, and often affiliate on the basis of cultural commonality, came a bit earlier for the rest of us. Like, say, kindergarten.

Your interest in denying the extent, lethality, and ambitions of Palestinian and Arab racism is noted. You clearly see only what you wish to see, and the Palestinians cannot be blamed for anything, and Israel is "incomparably" racist. Next to, let's see: Sudan? South Korea? Japan? Large sections of Africa? Saudi Arabia? Russia? The Palestinians, who voted in a government that sings songs like this and formally decalres Jews to be "apes and pigs"? Really? I could go on, but why?

All right, that's your opinion and it's a free country. But there is zero reason to treat you seriously at that point, except to note that you and Hamas have a shared object of hatred and move on.

"You clearly see only what you wish to see, and the Palestinians cannot be blamed for anything, and Israel is "incomparably" racist."

JK: I think he meant compared to Philly.

"BTW- did you know I was from Philly, or was that just chance?"

LOL. Pure dumb luck. I mentioned Philly because it is what I would consider an example of a highly Balkanized community in which the different ethnic groups still have some sort of tribal loyalty. Philly was a real eye-opener for me as a Southerner. I had assumed that that sort of racial division had died out in the US sometime back around the turn of the last century. Certainly I never thought of people as Irish, Italians, Jews, Germans, Poles, Scots etc. I in my naivity didn't even realize that these different ethnic groups had slurs for one another, or to the extent that I did I didn't realize that these slurs had any currency. In the South, black/white race relations so dominate the discussion you don't even think about the fact that there is any other kind.

In Philly though, I found not just black haters, or white haters, or even just Hispanic haters, or Indian haters, but Irish haters, Korean haters, Italian haters, and Jew haters in abundance. I heard more racial slurs than I knew existed, including some of clearly recent vintage (such as Jappy, or 'Jewish American Princess').

I really think its funny that you'd accuse me of cognitive bias. How am I supposed to know you don't have cognitive bias? Why should I believe that you having lived their for a while constitutes real authority on the subject? Isn't that in fact a cognitive bias on your own part, since in fact all you have is a single ancedote which I have to weigh against everything I've read and experienced concerning Israel. In particular, I find the claim, "I rarely saw opposition to racism." to be a little hard to swallow. You mean to tell me that the Meretz-Yahad party never criticizes parties like Moledet or Chayil or thier supporters? You mean to tell that far right parties like Chayil are mainstream and popular in Jewish politics?

You, see, I haven't lived in Israel, but I have been friends with many people that have. (In fact, there is one about 15 feet from me right now.) And beyond that, I've done my homework on this issue. I've seen varying degrees of racism in Jewish poeple, but generally no more than I've come to expect out a typical New Englander.

"The qualitative difference, between the Israeli's and the Palestinians, is that Israelis have all of the guns, and all of the power. Therefore, when Israel decided that the best defense against Palestinian extremists was to turn the entire west bank into one large ghetto, they could do so. All the Palestinians can do is blow themselves to bits, taking innocent Israelis with them."

That's extremely wrongheaded on several levels.

JK-

Once you get done hyperventilating go back and take a look at what I wrote. I didn't say that the racism in Israel was incomparable to ANY racism, I said it was incomparable to the racism in PHILADELPHIA. Capice? That is not radical agitprop- it's my opinion based off of living in Philadelphia for 20+ years and Israel for one. If you don't want to believe it- fine- but the only shit here is that which is clouding up your morality and rationality (and apparently your eyesight).

I do think it's interesting to note that Israel has the unique ability to turn normally rational adults into whimpering, little, temper-tantrum-throwing, brats.

"Your interest in denying the extent, lethality, and ambitions of Palestinian and Arab racism is noted."

Again, what exactly are you talking about? I know that those voices in your head can get loud, but can you please tell them to keep it down for a minute? The fact that I brought up Israeli discrimination does not mean that I don't think the Arabs are worse, and the fact that you automatically assumed that is what I was saying says a whole lot about your state of mind.

"The Palestinians, who voted in a government that sings songs like this and formally decalres Jews to be "apes and pigs"?"

Again- the difference here is one of power. Do I doubt for a second that the Palestinians (or at least many of them) would kill every man, woman, and child in Israel if they could? Nope. In fact I'm pretty sure that they would. Does this excuse the, often violent, racism of the Israelis?

And even if you think it does, which is the actual moral relitivism here, that still leaves unadressed the purely Jewish racism within Israel. I felt when I lived there, and I still feel now, that if you magically removed the Palestinians from the equation that the different Jewish groups would turn their guns on each other. Here's a quick quiz for you: how many non-Ashkenazi Labor party leaders have their been? Why did they convert ALL of the Ethiopian Jews once they arrived? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Thanks for the self-righteous rant though!

"You mean to tell me that the Meretz-Yahad party never criticizes parties like Moledet or Chayil or thier supporters? You mean to tell that far right parties like Chayil are mainstream and popular in Jewish politics?"

No, I don't mean that, not exactly. But with the exception of the far left groups in Israel, it is rare to find racism amongst Jews acknowledged at all (by those who hold the racist views- the Sephardim, Ethiopians, Russians, Mizrahi, Indians, etc are prob. pretty aware of it). But- I will admit that my statement there went a little too far. There were critics of the racist tendencies amongst some, and I apologize for taking my characteristic of the racist tendencies of Israelis too far. Is it okay to admit that you went too far in something you said online, or is that against blog etiquette?

That said the racism in Israel was, IMO, much, much worse than Philly, but then again everything over there seems more extreme. For example, most Israelis either considered themselves to be devoutly religious- either conservative or "the Blacks" (i.e. Hassidim, called blacks by the Kibuttznicks because of what they wear) - or completely secular (many of my friends there would argue with me for hours on end that they were Israeli, not Jewish).

(As a quick background- I lived in Israel from Fall 1996-Summer 1997, and amongst many of the Kibbutziks I lived, Sharon's death was completely devastating. Many also hated Bibbi and Sharon like they were the Devil)

I didn't accuse you of having a cognitive bias, I said it was one possibility for why you would think that racism was worse in Philly than in Israel, and I grew up in some of the more tense neighborhoods of the city (Germantown, S. Philly, the lower NE). I also think that you do have to live in Israel to get a real feel for it. I guess that's my own cognitive bias- I had no idea how intense the hatred was over there, on all sides, until I lived there. I also didn't even know about the differences between Ashkenazi and Sephardim/Mizrahi/etc until I got there. In Philyl a Jew was a Jew was a Jew, but not so in Israel. Does that mean that you can't get an idea about this without living there? No. My bias was assuming that everyone has to go through the same experience to figure out the same things, and that was wrong. The fact that you said the racism in Israel was comparable to Philly backs me up in thinking that you don't get it, but hey, you could live there and still not.

"That's extremely wrongheaded on several levels."

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But while I am disgusted by Palestinian behavior, I am more concerned with the state of my own people. This is about our morality, and since when do Jews base their morality off of the actions of others? Also- with power comes responsibility, even towards those who would do you harm, esp. when they are basically under your ward. Just because a prison guard is watching over murders, it doesn't give him the right to treat them how he pleases. Just because someone else does something bad, it doesn't excuse your own bad behaviors. That is the real moral relativism.

Ugg, that was supposed to read "Rabbin's death." I bet quite a few of the Kibbutznicks would have been happy to see the Bulldozer keel over. Obviously many on the right were happy to see Rabin murdered.

No, Alex, your words were not so qualified.

"The fact that you compared it to Philly shows just how little you know about Israel- which is almost incomparably racist.

This statement clearly says two things.

1] Israel cannot be compared to Philadelphia.
2] Israel is "almost incomparably racist." That is not qualified by any comparison in Alex's statement, and indeed it would be completely ridiculous to say "incomparably racist compared to Philadelphia."

The problem here isn't my reading, Alex, it's your writing. And the only "whimpering, little, temper-tantrum-throwing, brat" here is the one who had a bad experience on a kibbutz and decided that Israel must be the root of all evil. As for the Palestinians' organized promotion of genocide, which WAS the topic of the post, this is an issue NONE of your previous comments here have addressed except briefly, and then only to excuse. Hey, hard to be balanced when you're in those tin shacks and all that.

My conclusions were perfectly reasonable in light of your behaviour. I believe they are still perfectly reasonable, and our readers can judge.

"Again- the difference here is one of power.

Yes. The Israelis have consistently exercised their power is very restrained ways relative to their capabilities, sought peaceful settlement even at the price of significant compromises, and promoted tolerance - and the Palestinians have exercised theirs in unrestrained killing, glorification of same, unrestrained promotion of hate, and the promotion of wiping both Israel and its Jews off of the map. All backed by the larger Arab fatherland.

That would tell a normal person something important.

Do I doubt for a second that the Palestinians (or at least many of them) would kill every man, woman, and child in Israel if they could? Nope. In fact I'm pretty sure that they would. Does this excuse the, often violent, racism of the Israelis?"

It does not excuse anyone's racism - but as noted, I think your characterization of Israel in this manner is flawed at best and mendacious at worst.

Regardless of what it excuses, it certainly does not compare to the organized promotion of genocide in any way, shape, or form. Something you have never addressed here as a serious evil despite its status as the subject of this post, and never addressed without imputing whatever bad motives or action you can to the Israelis. Because the badness of the Israelis is what you wish to talk about - indeed, it is ALL you wish to talk about, and all you will talk about unless cornered.

Oh, and in answer to:

"Why did they convert ALL of the Ethiopian Jews once they arrived?"

Two words: Jewish Law. The Falashas wished to be Jewish, They affirmed their Jewishness. That affirmation was accepted (as evidenced by the major Israeli rescue and integration operation in the first place - odd that such a supposedly racist society would do this), but to be fully binding in Jewish Law the Orthodox Rabbis decided that a formal conversion would remove any doubts or technicalities. It was an innocuous move taken within the framework of a religious law that all parties involved desired to accept.

Again, the fact that you would choose to compare something like this to the Palestinian actions described in this blog post, which include organized and delberate murder, approval of same, and consistent promotion of hate and genocide says a great deal about you.

From a speech by Rabin's Daughter:

br. Two weeks before he was assassinated in 1995, Yitzhak Rabin told former secretary of state Henry Kissinger that Israel had entered the Oslo peace process because it had no choice. Or rather, it had three options regarding Gaza and the West Bank, but only one was a valid choice. The three choices were integration, that is, a move which would change the demographic basis of the State of Israel, creating a bi-national, or non-Jewish state; an Arab "Bantustan" solution, which would create an apartheid-like existence that would destroy the moral basis of the state; or negotiated coexistence.
...
br. Rabin's decision to choose negotiated coexistence was the motivation behind Oslo. Weakness was not behind it -- rather might, combined with the profound understanding of its limitations. My father was not lead or mislead, not duped nor manipulated. He knew exactly what he was getting into, what the price was and what he was receiving in return, the risks and shortcomings, the alternatives and the limitatons.
...
br. Oslo represented a mind-shattering change of tactics between two enemies. The hesitant handshake on the White House lawn represented an acceptance that the conflict can only be resolved by negotiation and compromise. Until that moment, the goal for both sides was to vanquish the enemy. From that moment on, the goal became to learn to live with the enemy side-by-side, in honor and in peace. That goal remains elusive and, at times, seemingly unapproachable. But it still exists -- in the rhetoric of the leaders of both sides and in the public opinion polls of both communities. This is perhaps the most important component of the legacy of Oslo: the realization that one side will not emerge the victor and the other the vanquished, but rather that the destinies of both nations are mutually dependent.

May G-d bless his soul.

Well, we agree on one thing, then. May Rabin rest in peace.

"The problem here isn't my reading, Alex, it's your writing. And the only "whimpering, little, temper-tantrum-throwing, brat" here is the one who had a bad experience on a kibbutz and decided that Israel must be the root of all evil."

LOL! Best. Time. Of. My. Life. But thanks for the laugh.

Joel- go take a valium and relax. The incomparable refers back to the comparison between Israel and Philly, and that seems pretty obvious. Was my use of a hyphen incorrect there? I certainly meant it to refer back to the comparison I was addressing within the same sentence.

And for the record- the man who tried to restrain Jewish action the most was murdered. And it wasn't at the hands of a Palestinian. As I read you now, I somehow doubt that you truly disapproved of that action. And really- is building a huge ghetto restraint? Compared to what- murdering the first born? Genocide? After all it seems that you believe that it is in the nature of Arabs to be evil- so why don’t we just get it over with and do what any good person would do to something so evil- destroy them all!

What’s the alternative JK? Do you think Israel can maintain this, in the words of the great Rabin, immoral stance forever? Do you think Israel can live in a constant state of war for ever?

BTW- do a bit of research on the Ethopians- they did not consent to the conversion, at least not all of them. Many, if not most, were converted against their will.

And when you say the following you merely illustrate the bias amongst the Jews that I refer to: "The Falashas wished to be Jewish, They affirmed their Jewishness. That affirmation was accepted, but to be fully binding in Jewish Law the Orthodox Rabbis decided that a formal conversion would remove any doubts or technicalities."

Here's one quote from the Ethiopians
bq. "Teshager, a 20-year-old Falash Mura immigrant, sees the conversion process as an attack on the authenticity of his heritage. Upon arriving in Israel two years ago, he was made to undergo ritual immersion and symbolic re-circumcision, which consisted of spilling a drop of blood from his penis.

"It destroyed my faith," he says. "We were Jews for 3,000 years. That's why I came here. This country has been in existence for 50 years. How do they have the right to decide who is Jewish - to say that only whites are Jews?"

Thank you for illustrating the exact bias that I didn't even know existed before I made my Aliah.

"In Philly a Jew was a Jew was a Jew, but not so in Israel."

I think that sums up your problem completely.

"What’s the alternative JK? Do you think Israel can maintain this, in the words of the great Rabin, immoral stance forever? Do you think Israel can live in a constant state of war for ever?"

No, I don't. And, that is the tragedy.

I think that Israel will keep extending the hand of peace - and I think that with the exception of a small fringe its a honest hand - and keep getting it slapped. I think that eventually the Palestinians will overreach - maybe they'll get ahold of some WMD's - and then I think that Israel will finally give them what they've been demanding - a real unlimited war with a real slaughter. I don't think that any country is strong enough that it can endure unlimited unending war without restraint or mercy on even its children, and lets not mistake that's what the palestinians are offering, and not respond in kind. When Oslo began, I fumed with rage for days because I knew what lay at the end of that road - it was the paved road to hell. Before Oslo there was a chance for peace. After Oslo, only ashes. When the second intifada began, I wept on and off for days (the plight of the Palestinians being one of my pet issues) because I wanted to get the grief over ahead of time. Not, I might add for those that would die in the intifada, but for the suckling children that would grow up to die because of the intifada. Peace died with Oslo. Clinton stuck a bloody dagger in her chest. Everyone that knew anything knew it. Before Oslo, there was the beginnings of communion, interaction, understanding - even the glimmerings of prosperity which is what the Palestinians really want even if they don't know it. But turning over the country to a man of death, deciet and terror like Yassir Arafat was the end of all that.

Raban was a good man. But he was not a wise man. The correct choice was choice one, but he couldn't see how it would happen except in a way that would lead to the eventual persecution of the Jewish people. On the other hand, he had an academic faith in a negotiation because that's what civilized people do, because it offered an easy way out that he could understand; but, negotiation has never once worked in the history of the world as a basis of a peace between two conflicting cultures because there is no basis of negotiation. There was however a basis of integration. Palestine could over time (generations, but the healing had already started) gone back to being Palestine - a multiethnic community that had lasted for centuries. Before Oslo, it was heading that way, but before it could go that way the violent in Palestine had to be marginalized and the culture of hatred allowed to fade away. Giving Yassir Arafat control - giving him an apparant victory - was the opposite of the right thing to do for alot of reasons - some obvious, some not so obvious. Most obviously it installed hate and corruption in the center of the culture, gave false proof that terror could bring success, and gave Arafat a chance through the media and schools to shape the minds of a whole generation.

And everyone knew it except those people with a idealized faith in the power of having the leaders talk to each other instead of having the people talk to each other. Peace is made on the street - either through war or through laughter and music - it's only ever formalized in the state room. You may not want to hear this. You may not want to believe this. You may think I'm just ranting. You may think I was an idiot, but there is this one fact. I - and a whole lot of people like me - were saying this very thing more than 10 year ago and since then EVERYTHING THAT WE SAID WOULD HAPPEN DID. From here on out, it feels almost academic to me.

"And really- is building a huge ghetto restraint?"

No, it is desperation. It's a scream of frustration, "Can't you see, I don't want to do this? I just wanted to live in peace. Please stop." But a wall won't contain hate if the hateful don't want it too. Heck, before you judge him, I imagine its that degree of frustration that's coloring JK's responces to you. He's probably one of us that say all this coming, and sees the ashes at the end of the road. We're just a couple of Cassandras, watching a tragedy unfold.

Don't you think Israel would back off from this if it could?

"Oslo represented a mind-shattering change of tactics between two enemies."

Do you have any idea how wrong-headed that statement is? Someone should have informed Yassir Arafat that this was a mind-shattering change of tactics on his part, because as he understood it it was capitulation. Someone should have found someone willing to make a mind-shattering change of goals before declaring a hope-shattering change of tactics.