Thanks for posting links to the videos and stills. I just finished watching the video and I have to disagree (somewhat) with the charge of anti-Semitism (although there may be things other than the video and the stills you provided which support the charge).

With the exception of the “what if I would have won” still (which is blatant Holocaust-denial IMO), pretty much everything there seems to directed towards bashing the State of Israel and Zionism while making the Palestinians out to be innocent victims of “apartheid.” The rhetoric is ridiculous, offensive, and outrageous IMO but I think it’s hard to call it “anti-Semitism” without falling into the “if you criticize Israel it’s the same as being anti-Jew” trap.

I don’t doubt that there could be and probably is some anti-Semitism behind some or much of the rhetoric but with the exception of the “what if I would have won” still, IMO what you’ve shown falls more into the “Israel-bashing” rather than “Jew-bashing” category.

Thorley -- questioning Israel alone of all nations having the right to exist IS anti-Semitism.

There is no other way round it.

My Working Definition of Antisemitism (2.0) re: Israel is when paranoid theories are applied to Israel (e.g. current 9.11 stuff of the hard-left), or blanket denounciations are made where "Israel" is interchangable with "the Jews."

Of course, Israel is as a matter of its own existence is a racist, apartheid country (not including the West Bank). I don't think any person here would bother to maintain that Arab Israelis are not second class citizens. They are, and if they weren't (or other immigrants weren't)-- there would be no Israel.

Personally, I think it's all worth it, for now. Even as second class citizens, Arab Israelis enjoy more rights and freedoms than their counterparts in neighboring countries. Discussing the intrinsic value of Israel itself is a whole seperate discussion.

How is Israel racist and apartheid? Other than of course Jews live there? And compared to say current day South Africa, or Zimbabwe, or Rwanda, or Sudan, or Nigeria, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia?

Arab Citizens have the same rights as Jewish ones, can and do serve in the Army and police, vote, and petition the courts.

The West Bank is the result of an unsettled war against Israel and no more indicative of a "racist and apartheid" state than say the continuing partition of Cyprus

"Israel is as a matter of its own existence is a racist, apartheid country"

This is the kind of glib remark that lieftists love to trade in. I think you don't know what the word "apartheid" means. It just doesn't apply to Israel.

Israeli Arabs have all the same rights as any other citizens, with these exceptions: Jews can get citizenship practically automatically, and other applicants (not just Arabs) have to go through the same channels as your typical immigrant to a Western country. Arab Israelis are exempted from mandatory Army service, but they can volunteer.
Arab Israelis are MPs, judges, professors, doctors, police, vote in elections, etc. Doesn't look like "second class" to me.

Many countries have similar or more stringent immigration preferences (including Europe), so if you are willing to call them "racist" also, then more than half of the globe's nations are "racist."

As Jim said, why all the contempt and hatred for Israel in particular?

Thorley and SAO are good examples of the Exception Clause.

Conor Cruise O'Brien wrote about the UN "debate" that took place after the Bay of Pigs debacle. Adlai Stevenson addressed the assembly and said "Freedom of speech in Cuba has been circumcised!" (Perhaps meaning to say "circumscribed")

The Israeli UN ambassador leaned over to O'Brien and said, "See, I knew we were going to get blamed for this!"

Thorley -- questioning Israel alone of all nations having the right to exist IS anti-Semitism.

I have to disagree with this point. Both Michael Medved and Dennis Praeger, who are both staunchly pro-Israel, agree that one can be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic because even though most anti-Semites tend to be anti-Israel, not all anti-Israel sorts are anti-Semitic. Many people are anti-Israel for a variety of reasons which are not anti-Semitic per se. While the two positions are usually closely aligned but IMO you need to make a stronger showing of proof of anti-Semitism than merely being anti-Israel or else you run the risk of engaging in the sort of slur that Yehudit tried to make against me in his last post.

That aside, I have to reverse my earlier position that the video/stills (sans the Hitler holocaust denial one) were not enough to show anti-Semitism as opposed to just being anti-Israel because of something I just now noticed. The swastikas on the depictions of Israelis soldiers tend to draw the eye away from the features of the soldiers themselves which is why I hadn’t noticed that in about half of the crudely drawn cartoons, the Israelis soldiers are depicted with ethnically stereotypical features (e.g. big hooked noses). The use of negative ethnic stereotypes, particularly in such a charged context, would qualify as anti-Semitism.

Thorley -

Among the things that US and Israeli delegates saw at Durban were the Protocols of Zion on display at conference tables, and Palestinians distributing pictures of Hitler that said "If I had won the war, there would be no Israeli state and no Palestinian blood lost."

The Commission on Anti-Semitism at Durban required police protection to protect it from a mob. Another mob closed down the Jewish center while chanting "Hitler didn't finish the job."

The creeps from Human (Except for Jews) Rights Watch issued a statement at Durban that said they "could not oppose calls for violence when violence was justified, as in the campaign against apartheid or support for the intifada."

And so on and so on.

The creeps from Human (Except for Jews) Rights Watch issued a statement at Durban that said they "could not oppose calls for violence when violence was justified, as in the campaign against apartheid or support for the intifada.”

I have little love for Human Rights Watch but I have trouble believing that they would issue such a statement. I’ve googled various variations of it and searched through the HRW website and have found nothing similar to it other than an op-ed piece (click on my name for the link) written by Shimon Samuels.

That strikes me as odd since one would think – particularly given how polarizing this group has become, especially to many on the Right such as myself – that if they made such a damning statement, it would have been plastered all over the internet by now and there would be some primary source in writing from them showing that they made such a statement. That the only place I’ve been able to find it is in an op piece makes me somewhat skeptical of whether this is something that they actually said or possibly a misrepresentation.

If you have some primary source for it, I’d appreciate it if you’d share.

Thorley -

Gerald Steinberg reported this in a series of Jerusalem Post articles that are no longer online, some information here. H(EFJ)RW's response is still online here.

The statement is not on H(ERJ)RW's website, nor was it apparently ever reproduced there. They issued eight statements at Durban, the last of which criticized anti-Semitism. Reportedly they patched things up because of a backlash from their financial contributors.

But so what? Considering that H(EFJ)RW is cheek and jowl with people like MERIP, ISM, and Electronic Intifada, you can go chasing after the exonerating material that proves they're just good liberals.

I take exception to Thorley and Sao's remarks simply for the lack of perspective and scope from which they operate.

Thorley, the line from anti-zionism gets crossed into anti-semitism occurs once a separate, higher standard is applied to Israel alone and not to other countries. It happens in different contexts but can be seen when Israel is required to exit the disputed territories in the West Bank (Gaza is no longer an issue), yet no such demand is made to the Chinese in Tibet, when it invaded without provocation prior to the 67 war.

In the same vein, SAO refers to racist, apartheid Israel. Aside from agreeing with Yehudit's picking apart the racism theory, although like Blacks in the US, Arabs lag behind due to past unfairness and present disagreements in how to bridge current gaps, SAO neglects to apply his same comparison to other countries.

For instance, Saudi Arabia won't let non-Muslims into their country as immigrants, non-Muslim visitors can not practice their religion, wear their religious symbol nor bring with them their holy text. Yet, no peep is heard about this racist, apartheid behavior which is light years worse than anything Israel ever did to its Arab population.

Nothing incenses Jews and Israel supporters more than reasonable people who apply, more out of ignorance than true hostility, differing standards to Israel without a thorough analysis and comparison to other nations.

And the vitriol poured against Israel has perversely weakened the what little standards used against Israel to the point that many wish to deny Israel's right to exist at all

I hadn’t noticed that in about half of the crudely drawn cartoons, the Israelis soldiers are depicted with ethnically stereotypical features (e.g. big hooked noses). The use of negative ethnic stereotypes, particularly in such a charged context, would qualify as anti-Semitism.

According to Thorley, sympathizing with the genocidal freaks who would like to destroy the state of Israel isn't anti-Semitism per se, but the act of drawing 'ethnic stereotypes' is? In other words, sticks and stones won't break my bones but names will always hurt me..Is this what passes for 'logic' from the PC left and the paleo right?

Speaking of apartheid, the Palestinian Authority adopted an official constitution based on Koranic "Sharia" Law. All Christians who live under the PA are now subject to Islamic Law. As of 2003, Palestinian Christians were looking for any and every way to escape the oppression of Sharia laws.

Under Sharia laws:

- Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;

- The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;

- A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;

- A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;

- Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;

- Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;

- The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;

- A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;

- The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;

- Slavery is permitted;

- Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

That's apartheid. It's also genocidal. As of 2005, I wonder how many Palestinian Christians are still in their homeland.

The Palestinians, and the Islamist nations that are using the Palestinians as a weapon in their war against Israel (Iran, Saudi Arabia) hope to install apartheid Shariah laws in every nation around the world. In the name of Sharia, Islamists are murdering Buddhist monks, Christians, Hindus and atheists. It's not just anti-Semitism, it's imperialism and fascism, in a form that we've seen before.

mary #13,

To build on what you've been saying, the apartheid PA has caused the proportion of the Christian population of Bethlehem to drop from around 80% pre-Oslo to around 2% now. Furthermore, the apartheid PA demands that all territories delivered to it be Judenrein. If Israel was half as apartheid as the PA is, there wouldn't be any Arabs in Israel.

#10 Thorley Winston,

Following a link from #11, here is an archive of Anne Bayefsky's April 2004 op-ed piece, describing Human Rights Watch misdeeds at Durban.

Thorley and SAO are good examples of the Exception Clause.

This is particularly funny, because I went out of my way to state "Even as second class citizens, Arab Israelis enjoy more rights and freedoms than their counterparts in neighboring countries;" which itself is a blanket condemnation of most of the Arab Middle East.

Personally, I subscribe to the (recent) Benny Morris philosophy, i.e. "you have to crack some eggs to make an omelet." In a time when countries are being encouraged to drop ethnic classifications in the face of genocides and cleansings, Israel is going against the grain. Not only that, but it's strength: cultural, political, and economic is testament to the fallacies of our politically-correct, "post-colonial" ethos.

Of course I wouldn't argue that no eggs were ever broken, that would be both disingenous and dangerous.

In light of this, I'd like to propose something else, the Blowhard Clause for those of us who couch their rightwing, jingoist ideology in pro-Israeli rhetoric.

Glen Wishard,

Do you have anything which shows that this was actually said by HRW:

These proclamations were, however, blown asunder when Human Rights Watch stated that it "could not oppose calls for violence when violence was justified, as in the campaign against apartheid or support for the intifada."

Because that’s a clear statement that violence is okay which is different than saying “Israel’s policies are bad or racist” or “Israel is as bad as this country because it does X” which is what your links suggest HRW has said.

Again, not a fan of HRW and I think you’ve pointed to some actual legitimate examples of where they deserve criticism for some of their rhetoric and bias. But there’s a pretty clear line from some of that rhetoric versus saying “violence is justified” which does not fit with what I’ve seen HRW say in the past.

If you have something to support that particular quote, please share it. If not, please retract it and focus your otherwise thoroughly justified IMO criticisms of HRW on things that can be supported.

Mary Madigan wrote:

According to Thorley, sympathizing with the genocidal freaks who would like to destroy the state of Israel isn't anti-Semitism per se, but the act of drawing 'ethnic stereotypes' is?

Actually anyone who read my first two posts (which were the ones that dealt specifically with the video and stills provided by Yehudit) would not that I specifically referred to the Hitler picture (“what if I would have won”) as the thing I definitely found anti-Semitic (in part for blatantly being Holocaust-denial).

If you wish to expand the scope of inquiry beyond just the stills and videos (which were the focus of my first two posts), I wouldn’t disagree that there were probably some blatantly anti-Semitic activities and propaganda being put out (Glen points to the Elders of Zion and anti-Jewish riots which I agree would qualify). However as my first two posts were limited to just a discussion of the stills and videos (which specifically acknowledging that there could be things beyond that which I addressed which qualify as anti-Semitic.

Your conclusion therefore that I somehow only consider drawings rather than “sympathizing with the genocidal freaks” as anti-Semitism is simply a transparent slur that isn’t going to fool anyone capable of reading English above a third grade level.

... a transparent slur that isn’t going to fool anyone capable of reading English above a third grade level.

Got to love the LGF transplants. Spouting accusations and bigotry almost as fast as they react with shock--horror--outrage (!) to Thorley's mild, thoughtful comments and retractions.

It's all more than a little ironic in the end.

Thorley - would you call someone who said that the Jews were a virus resembling AIDS from which the entire world suffers, who says 'the day will come when the world will be relieved of the Jews', who said the Jews provoked Nazism and WWII - a racist?

If that same person discussed the destruction of the Jewish and the American state, would you call them genocidal? Not PC? Or just "Israel Bashing"?

Comments on specific statements and specific links can relate only to those, er, specifics, can't they? Especially when the commenter states this caveat plainly?

As well, I think requests for citations and links are often helpful in moving the discussion forward. Shows somebody's interested, anyway.

Thorley: If you have something to support that particular quote, please share it. If not, please retract it and focus your otherwise thoroughly justified IMO criticisms of HRW on things that can be supported.

HRW denies it. Other people who were there say it happened. I know who I believe, and you can believe what you want, but I'm not "retracting" it just because it isn't online.

Mary Madigan wrote:

Thorley - just noticed, I posted as just 'mary' here. Interesting.

would you call someone who said that the Jews were a virus resembling AIDS from which the entire world suffers.. a racist.

In any case, I would call the person quoted above a racist and a gencoidal freak. The palestinians would call him a leader and a holy man. He's Palestinian Shiek Ibrahim Muderis, and he's quoted here on this video.