Hate Speech Finds a Mainstream Platform

[Jefferson23]

Oct 3, 2011

by Mouin Rabbani

It is not often that major international publications respond to crackpot opinion pieces in other newspapers. Yet Robert L. Bernstein’s latest tantrum against the Palestinians, which the Washington Post published instead of steering the author to an extremist website, was so far beyond the pale that The Economist felt compelled to issue a rejoinder.


Beneath the layers of dehumanization, delegitimization, distortion, and outright deceit, Bernstein’s argument is straightforward in tone yet crooked in reasoning: Israel is the victim of the Palestinians it has dispossessed and occupied; Palestinian (and Arab) hostility to Israel is—and is motivated by—anti-Semitism rather than dispossession and occupation; and anyone who disagrees with his putrid nonsense is an accomplice to incitement to genocide. His proof consists of a blend of his own imagination and assertions, and quotes from Palestinian Media Watch which is a propaganda outfit run by radical Jewish settlers that has been thoroughly discredited by serious scholars on every continent save Antarctica.

Bernstein concentrates his bile on the United Nations and human rights organizations, particularly Human Rights Watch which he apparently established. He accuses these organizations of being “accomplices” to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, which he re-defines as a campaign to commit genocide. The claim is laughable at best.

Rather than being an enemy of Israel, the UN established it. In the decades since 1948, the UN has systematically failed to redress the resultant ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of Palestinians from the territory that became Israel. Moreover, its Security Council has been instrumental in promoting Israeli impunity with respect to systematic violations of the UN Charter and other UN conventions.

remainder: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/2804/hate-speech-finds-a-mainstream-platform

[msongs]

1. Israel should read its own bibles - you reap what you sow nt

[holdencaufield]

6. Maybe you should read yours...

"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." -- is from Galatians 6:7. In the NEW Testament

Not from Tanach.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Says the guy who got published on a fra from mainstream website

where hyperbole and other crap is the norm.

This is somewhere between PKB and just hilarious.

[Jefferson23]

3. Your response holds no understanding of the OP. To ignore or dismiss or

perhaps overlooked on your part that The Economist took on Mr Bernstein...his bullshit which Rabbani refers to. Mr Rabbani
is known for writing hyperbole and other crap..you mean like those The Nation accepts from him? Talk about hilarious conclusions, that
would be yours.

Mr Rabbani's reputation is intact btw, not known for his hyperbole: Mouin Rabbani was as late as January 2006 a "Senior Analyst/Middle East with the International Crisis Group - with his focus on Palestinian affairs and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Previously he worked as Palestine Director of the Palestinian American Research Centre, and before that as project director for the Association of Netherlands Municipalities in a project to establish the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities. From 1988-1990 he was volunteer researcher at Al-Haq, and among other things served as General Editor for the 1990 Al-Haq annual report A Nation Under Siege. A contributing editor of Middle East Report (MERIP) he has published and commented widely on Palestinian affairs and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is currently based in Amman, Jordan." <1>

Senior Fellow, Institute for Palestine Studies
Senior Associate, FAFO (Norway)
Palestinian Advisory Committee, Palestinian American Research Center <2>
Contents
1 Selected Articles
2 Resources and articles
2.1 Related Sourcewatch articles
2.2 References


Selected Articles
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Mouin Rabbani, "The Standard Colonial Pattern", Race and Class, vol 37, no. 2, October-December, 1995.
Mouin Rabbani, "Palestinian Dilemmas", The Nation, January 12, 2006.
Robert Blecher and Mouin Rabbani, "In Annapolis Conflict by Other Means," Middle East Report Online, November 26, 2007.
Mouin Rabbani, "Birth Pangs of a New Palestine," Middle East Report Online, January 7, 2009.
Mouin Rabbani, "The Continuity of Obama's Change", Znet, January 30, 2009.
Mouin Rabbani, "Human Rights Watch Goes to War", normanfinkelstein.com, February 1, 2009.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mouin_Rabbani




On claims of Palestinian anti-Semitism
snip* Hussein Ibish made similar points earlier this year in Foreign Policy. Some people may disagree with these arguments, but they're hardly anti-Semitic or violent. The issue of the Jewish character of the Israeli state is a profoundly difficult one even for liberal Zionist Jews, who wrestle with how such a legal character can be squared with the principles of secular government and equality for all citizens before the law. It's certainly understandable that Palestinians refuse to condone what they consider an objectionable aspect of Israeli governance as part of a peace deal. Would America have agreed to recognise the right of Vietnam to exist as a Communist state in the Paris peace talks in 1972? If Mr Bernstein wants to make a case that by recognising a Palestinian state the UN would be sanctioning anti-Semitic or violent anti-Israeli propaganda, he'll need to find some better examples.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/israel-palestine-0

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Rabbani is baised to the point of being rabid. The hyperbole in the OP alone

goes a long way to discredit him. He gets some press, but few take him seriously.

[Jefferson23]

8. You mean progressives don't take him seriously? He is biased to the

point of being rabid according to you..you agree with Mr Bernstein, is that correct?

[shira]

16. This blog post from the Economist is a joke. Clinton's Taba initiatives did include recognition...

...of a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one.

Further, if this blogger had done ANY research whatsoever on Abbas and his view WRT recognition of Israel, he'd have come up with the following:
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=826

The photo-ops alone showing Abbas proudly holding up maps of Palestine replacing all Israel would make front page headlines EVERYWHERE if it were Netanyahu doing the opposite WRT a greater Israel.

[Mosby]

4. all this pos article demonstrates

Is how faux liberals like rabbani adopt liberal language memes to use against israel and the west. Ffs the guy lives in a country that is explicitly muslim and completely lacks any kind of pluralism whatsoever.

Maybe this idiot could write an essay about why polling firms (like pew) keep finding MASSIVE amounts of antisemitism in the hashemite kingdom. I wonder where that came from, their dislike of palestinians? No that couldn't be it. Maybe the peace deal they signed with israel? No that doesn't make sense either. I just don't know, do muslims have some sort of problems with jews maybe?

[Jefferson23]

5. Would it be fair to say from your response you agree with Mr Bernstein?

[shira]

17. Hell yeah, I agree with Mr. Bernstein, founder of HRW before it turned to shit. n/t

[Jefferson23]

20. I'm shocked I tell ya, lol. well, at least you admit it. ..thanks. n/t

[shira]

21. Bernstein's right about Abbas. Your trusty sources tend to whitewash/censor his views & deeds.

Here's more than enough proof:

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=826

Of course, I suspect you don't believe anything in that link is true about Abbas and his PA cronies.

The rightwing source must be making it all up.

Or worse, it doesn't matter.

:eyes:

There's nothing hateful about Bernstein's "hate speech". It's nothing of the sort when it's based on facts. It's absurd to claim that pointing out hate vs. Israel and its Jews is bigotry.

[shaayecanaan]

9. The rebuke from the Economist can be found here:-

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/israel-palestine-0

Hussein Ibish made similar points earlier this year in Foreign Policy. Some people may disagree with these arguments, but they're hardly anti-Semitic or violent. The issue of the Jewish character of the Israeli state is a profoundly difficult one even for liberal Zionist Jews, who wrestle with how such a legal character can be squared with the principles of secular government and equality for all citizens before the law. It's certainly understandable that Palestinians refuse to condone what they consider an objectionable aspect of Israeli governance as part of a peace deal. Would America have agreed to recognise the right of Vietnam to exist as a Communist state in the Paris peace talks in 1972?

A good read.

Also from Mondo Weiss "Perfect match: Bob Bernstein uses settler sources for racist anti-Arab ‘WaPo’ Op-Ed"

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/perfect-match-bob-bernstein-uses-settler-sources-for-racist-anti-arab-wapo-op-ed.html

[Jefferson23]

10. Thanks, I had added the link to The Economist in post #3, but not many

may have seen it, at least those who have commented here have made no reference to it. It's been exclusive to
Rabbani being rabidly biased and all, lol.

Thanks for the additional link as well.

[Scurrilous]

11. Thanks for the links.

:thumbsup:

[azurnoir]

12. Thanks informative link on Robert L Bernstein

the Mondoweiss article is great according to Bernstein the real 'obstacle' to peace is Palestinian words and Israels actions have nothing to do with it

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Its blog post, not an article or editorial by the Economist

Do we even know who M.S is?

[shira]

18. Shhh, some like to believe it's a legit Economist editorial. n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

13. Much of what Rabbani accuses Bernstein of in this article such as

"dehumanization, delegitimization, distortion, and outright deceit" is a clear case of a pot to kettle moment. Rabbani's distortions, lies and hyperbole are on a pathalogical level.

"It is not often that major international publications respond to crackpot opinion pieces in other newspapers. Yet Robert L. Bernstein’s latest tantrum against the Palestinians, which the Washington Post published instead of steering the author to an extremist website, was so far beyond the pale that The Economist felt compelled to issue a rejoinder.

From the first words in the article the BS starts and does not end until the last words. He starts the article by calling RB (Robert Bernstein)a crackpot and extremist when RB is an extremely accomplished, highly educated and well respected person on an international level who has recieved many awards, accolades and honors in recognition. Rabbani's resume looks like a ass hair compared to RB and I will post info in another post to show the contrast.

Rabbani claim that the authors article was "so far beyond the pale that The Economist felt compelled to issue a rejoinder" is an outright lie. The so called rejoinder he says the Economist issued is nothing of the sort, it is simply someones opinion in a blog post in one of the many blogs in The Economist by someone who calls themselves M.S. and posts in the http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica blog http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/israel-palestine-0 . Its not any kind of official editorial issued by the Economist itself as Rabbani tries to decieve us into believing.


If you go paragragh by paragragh and compare Rabbani's claims to what RB actually says or in many cases never said then you see that just about every word out of Rabbani is some kind of distortion ,lie or some other kind of BS. There is certainly room for honest disagreement with what RB says as there usually is with anyone, but what Rabbani does is so far outside the perimeter of honest disagreement its a joke.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. It is pretty fatuous all the way round.

[Jefferson23]

19. I have found the responses to the OP amusing, and considering the

audience, not surprising.


snip* From Bernstein:
Two dominant forces have defined Arab nations in modern times: autocratic leadership that has denied basic freedoms to its own people, and a deeply ingrained and institutionalized anti-Semitism, centered on a hatred of Israel. Freedom is a growing possibility in light of the Arab Spring, but for this freedom to lead to peace, progress must be made in ending hate speech and incitement to genocide. This is particularly true in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran. Yet at this moment of possibility, the United Nations is fueling discord and anti-Semitism.

The United Nations is doing this by granting legitimacy to Hamas, a terrorist Islamic group, and the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas. A vote to add to the United Nations a new member state that calls for the elimination of its neighbor and glorifies terrorism will make peace harder — not easier — to achieve. While Hamas’s calls for genocide most certainly should be condemned, those who would accept the position Abbas has taken, even as recently as Friday, when he submitted to the United Nations an application for statehood, should be aware of the work of Palestinian Media Watch. The group, an Israeli research institute focused on monitoring the messages of all aspects of Palestinian media, has detailed some of the deception of the Palestinian Authority, even during moments of peace talks. For example, while portraying himself to the West as a man of compromise, Abbas said flatly last October that “we refuse to recognize a Jewish state.” (end)

From when the horse leaves the barn, Bernstein begins with his proof of motive and intent..one can embrace the blatant lies
and ignore as he does that the UN bid, among many other moves by Abbas have been NON- VIOLENT. One can ignore the responsibility
that the United States asked of Israel regarding settlements, and which Israel went ape-shit over, but, why bother on small
details like that when you can resort and rely on referring to anti-semitism as the main culprit.


As for the deceit, you are incorrect..the only member of the blog who has the title The Economist after his name
is the one who wrote the rebuke, he works/represents The Economist. You'll see this in the reply that was given
further down in the exchange area.

on edit for clarity.

[shira]

22. It's amusing you find Rabbani's idiocy convincing in some way. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I've just read Bernstein's article, and it's a disgusting and dishonest rant full of hyperbole....

Bernstein is merely regurgitating the ugly anti-Arab nonsense peddled by RW 'supporters' of Israel. There's nothing new in this formula. The recipe is very simple:

1 - NEVER mention the Occupation. That way there's no legitimate reason to criticise Israel, so any criticism must be antisemitism
2 - Ensure that the PA is thrown into the same sentence as Hamas so that people will see them as one and the same. If they don't, quickly label them antisemitic.
3 - Accuse Arabs of being genocidal as many times as possible, while being ready to spring into action and label anyone who uses the word *genocide* in the same sentence as Israel as antisemite.
4. Link to extremist sites like PalWatch and Arutz Sheva, and inform people reading that these are scholars of international repute. Label anyone who disagrees antisemitic.
5. Call the UN antisemitic, forgetting the role of the UN in Israel's creation and that Israel is a full member of the UN. Call anyone who disagrees an antisemite.
6. Imply that Palestine's statehood bid is really a genocidal and antisemitic attempt to destroy Israel. Anyone who disagrees is clearly as antisemitic as the UN!
7. Assume that anyone reading wouldn't be aware that ugly and bigoted statements are made by both religious extremist Palestinians and Israelis. Ignore the ones made by Israelis and focus only on Palestinian ones. Call anyone who notices that the ones by the extremist Israelis are being ignored ignorant of the complex history of Israel and antisemitic. Ask them why they're singling out only Israeli ones. Only a bigot focuses on only one side!
8 - Make sure anything that could be seen as legitimate criticism of Israel is labelled as necessary self-defensive measures. If you have to mention the deaths and mistreatment of Palestinian civilians, make sure it's only for a few seconds in the 'necessary self-defensive measures' sentence before moving onto the Big Issues that are far more important than some dead Palestinians - words. Words hurt far more than bombs and missiles, and anyone who disagrees is antisemitic...

[Crunchy Frog]

24. Continual misuse of the term "anti-semitism" will eventually render the term meaningless.

This seems to me to be an unfortunate development, considering that real anti-semitism is still very much in existence.

It's the "boy who cried wolf" phenomenon. The wolf is still there and dangerous, but nobody takes it seriously anymore.

[shira]

26. To claim that anti-semitism is not a major factor in the Arab/Israel conflict is dishonest. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Ah, it's been going on as long as I've been in this forum...

It seems the accusations get more shrill and thrown around more feverishly when Israel is shooting itself in the foot, which with the Netanyahu government tends to happen a lot, in what I'm assuming is a pretty weak attempt to divert attention from whatever it is Israel has done. In the past few weeks alone, I've seen Robert Malley accused of being antisemitic, seen half the regulars in this forum accused of the same, and seen a blog that advocates peace between Israelis and Palestinans called the Protocols...

[Shaktimaan]

29. so./..

You don't think that anti-semitism is a legitimate factor in this conflict?
That it is a shrill accusation?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I think it's every bit as much a legitimate factor as Islamophobia is...

Wouldn't you agree?

[shira]

25. There's nothing dishonest or disgusting about it.

As to your points, I'll start with #1.

1 - NEVER mention the Occupation. That way there's no legitimate reason to criticise Israel, so any criticism must be antisemitism

He shouldn't have to mention the occupation every time he brings up something about I/P. The fact is that the Arab/Israel conflict (not just I/P) goes back at least 40-50 years prior to 1967. To claim it's all about the occupation is dishonest. To claim anti-semitism plays no significant role in the conflict is even more dishonest.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. The article was riddled with dishonesty and bigotry...

If anyone wrote about Jews the same way he wrote about Arabs, they'd be rightly denounced as a bigot.

He shouldn't have to mention the occupation every time he brings up something about I/P.

He doesn't mention it at all, even though he spends lots of words and energy on labelling Arabs as genocidal maniacs. That's par for the course for his type, who do cling to the formula I posted. Act as though the occupation doesn't exist, so that when people criticise Israel, they can act all outraged and pretend the criticism is totally unprovoked and label it, and many times the person doing the criticising as antisemitic. They do that in order to try to stifle criticism of Israel. After all, most people don't like being called antisemitic, whether or not the accusation is being flung around like shit.

The fact is that the Arab/Israel conflict (not just I/P) goes back at least 40-50 years prior to 1967.

No shit. What does that have to do with anything I said?

To claim it's all about the occupation is dishonest.

Thankfully, no-one has claimed that...

To claim anti-semitism plays no significant role in the conflict is even more dishonest.

Again, no-one's claimed that. If you go back and reread the post you replied to, you'll see I'm actually saying it plays a significant role in how some dishonest people try to frame the conflict...

[shira]

31. Pointing out the PA's Jew hatred is not bigotry vs. all Palestinians.

Seems the default pro-Palestinian position is to deny the antisemitism and genoicidal tendencies of Hamas or the PLO by turning it around, callingi it a zionist trick, and accusing the accusers of dishonesty, fanaticism, and bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. No, pointing that out would be dishonesty. What's bigotry is...

...the references in the article to how Arabs lap up this supposed incitement to genocide. If this was said about Israelis, people would be pointing out that it's bigoted to do so. But when it comes to Arabs it seems like anything goes...

I've got no idea what the 'default pro-Palestinian' position is, but anyone who accuses the PA of having genocidal tendencies is really hitting the Gold when it comes to dishonesty...

[shira]

34. 73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter....

73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees....53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools. When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358320

That's almost entirely attributable to constant non-stop Hamas/PLO saturation brainwashing through mosques, schools, and media.

Thus, the PLO and Hamas are doing all they can to make peace virtually impossible.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. What does yr reposting of a very questionable poll have to do with what I posted?

Want me to start posting some polls that show extremely ugly and bigoted attitudes amongst Israelis? I'm not sure what yr point is. Are you actually trying to claim that Arabs are genocidal maniacs?

I don't think trying to make out the PA and Hamas are one and the same is a particularly effective tactic. While Hamas are extremist lunatics, the PA isn't, and using 'Hamas/PA' when describing Hamas is as clumsy a tactic as someone going 'Republicans/Democrats' when describing Bush's administration...

[shira]

36. You're missing the point. That poll shows around 3/4 of Palestinians....

...in both the WB and Gaza have these views. That is not all attributable to Hamas alone. The PA is very much accountable for their own non-stop, constant anti-Israel, anti-Jew incitement.

Here's recent documentation of the PA insisting all Israel is Palestine. And also, PM Abbas holding maps of Palestine replacing Israel...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=367760&mesg_id=367799

In addition to proving Abbas and his PA truly do not recognize Israel's right to exist despite signing off on Oslo, it sends a clear message to the Palestinians he is supposed to represent. Mainly, that Israel has no right to exist. When combined with all the other 24/7/365 Jew hating incitement from the PA, it's clear Abbas and his PA are doing all they can to undermine peace and keep the war against the Jews ongoing.

Robert Bernstein should be pointing this out.

It's dishonest to deny all this happening and shameful to turn it around by accusing Bernstein of bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. So are you claiming that Palestinians are genocidal maniacs?

And I'm not getting yr point because it makes no sense. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the poll isn't a very questionable one commissioned by a highly partisan 'pro-Israel' American group, and that some of the results differed markedly from those of reputable polls carried out only weeks or months before. How would that prove that the PA is 'inciting genocide'?

Why do you link to yr own posts which link to an anti-Palestinian group run by an extremist settler who apart from making an extremely bigoted anti-Muslim film, also associates with Pamela Geller? It'd really help to link to reputable and credible sources (eg articles in the mainstream media) rather than extremist crap, because it stops me asking the question 'so it's okay to be bigoted towards Muslims, but it's not okay to hold a map? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites'.

In addition to proving Abbas and his PA truly do not recognize Israel's right to exist despite signing off on Oslo...

I'm sorry. I'm lost now. What proved that?

When combined with all the other 24/7/365 Jew hating incitement from the PA...

Yeah, that applying for full membership of the UN is such 24/7/365 Jew hating incitement! ;)

Robert Bernstein should be pointing this out.

Well, from what I read, he's got the art of spewing dishonest and bigoted crap down to a fine art. It's possible he could finesse it a bit as he forgot to use the 'Jenin Hoax!!!!' line, but I would have thought his fellow travellers would have been extremely happy with his efforts to demonise the Palestinians...

[shira]

38. I think I know why you're asking me that. It's the only logical conclusion, right?

1. That poll by the Israel Project was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, certainly not a rightwing fanatical, biased, or bigoted organization. Three years ago, another Palestinian poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research showed 84% of Palestinians supported the Mercaz Harav slaughter of Yeshiva high school students....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html

2. I'm thinking you asked me that question in your headline because if these polls are accurate, that's the only logical conclusion that can be made, right? Better not to report these things at all, or else the fear is that people will conclude Palestinians are genocidal maniacs, right? Or it's best to portray those who report this information as bigoted fanatical extremists, like Robert Bernstein. I wonder if a similar poll were conducted in Nazi Germany and 75-85% of all Germans were portrayed in a similar manner, would you accuse those reporting this information of bias and bigotry against Germans?

3. The proof that the PA is against peace, against Jews, and against Israel's existence is on "rightwing" sites like PMW and MEMRI, for example. These Palestinian polls only confirm what those sites are translating from the Palestinian media. They confirm that the PA, not just Hamas, is inciting Palestinians towards very destructive hatred of Israel and its Jews - and that Robert Bernstein is absolutely correct.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. I asked you because I'd like an answer...

I think it's important to read what I said at the start of my post: 'Let's pretend for the sake of argument that the poll isn't a very questionable one commissioned by a highly partisan 'pro-Israel' American group, and that some of the results differed markedly from those of reputable polls carried out only weeks or months before. How would that prove that the PA is 'inciting genocide'?'

The Israel Project commissioned that poll and is indeed a highly partisan 'pro-Israel' American group. They're who gives the pollster the brief, including the questions to be asked, who they want the questions asked of, etc. There were discrepancies between the results of that poll and others taken around the same time. But as there's polls that have come out showing ugly and bigoted attitudes amongst Israelis, and the exchange was about you objecting to the idea that the Occupation is a factor in criticism of Israel, let's not turn this thread into another thread about that poll, considering it's been done to death before. All I'll say on it is that it's a dangerous path to go down, as polls of Israelis could also be used with that same 'logic' to argue that Israelis are genocidal maniacs. Also, and this shouldn't need to be pointed out, holding bigoted views doesn't make someone genocidal. Accusations involving genocide are unfortunately used far too often by some in Team Israel and Team Palestine, and it's very clear that there's no understanding of what genocide is, nor the distinct steps that make up genocide.

As for yr last point, did you read what I said in the post you replied to?

'Why do you link to yr own posts which link to an anti-Palestinian group run by an extremist settler who apart from making an extremely bigoted anti-Muslim film, also associates with Pamela Geller? It'd really help to link to reputable and credible sources (eg articles in the mainstream media) rather than extremist crap, because it stops me asking the question 'so it's okay to be bigoted towards Muslims, but it's not okay to hold a map? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites'.'

Yet you respond by saying that very source I described is *proof* and seem to be implying that it's a left-wing source. So please read what I said above and if you see something from a bigoted source run by extremists, try to track down the same claims from a reputable mainstream source.

Finally, continuing to accuse the PA of being genocidal without providing a shred of evidence to support that claim is just showing more and more what a lying zealot Bernstein actually is. We're all supposed to believe that Peres and others who admire Abbas are admirers of genocidal maniacs? And why would Nutty be claiming he'll negotiate with genocidal maniacs as long as he's allowed to continue building settlements and doing whatever he likes during negotiations? That makes no sense...

[shira]

40. Before I answer, I want to know what you make of the poll showing 84% of Palestinians...

...being in favor of the Mercaz Harav massacre of 2008. Are those 84% genocidal maniacs? Or do you have a problem with the poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research?

[Violet_Crumble]

41. How about you just answer the question I asked you...

I'm not really all that interested in 'I'll only answer you if you answer this question I've just come up with' games...

[shira]

42. X

[shira]

43. Okay, but then you answer me, okay?

To answer this, I ask myself what would I think if 84% of Israelis were in favor of murdering random Palestinian teens. I'm not sure I'd object to any description of these Israelis, whether it's 84% or 0.84%. Same goes for any other group of people with such awful views.

Your thoughts on the 84% of Palestinians in favor of Mercaz Harav?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. You didn't answer the question you were asked. A simple yes or not will do...

To remind you of what the question was, here it is again: 'So are you claiming that Palestinians are genocidal maniacs?' Answering it involves either saying yes and explaining why you believe that, or saying no and explaining what you are trying to claim.

I'm going to use the opportunity while I wait for you to answer what is a very simple question to answer to talk about the tactic of some so-called 'supporters' of Israel. Time and time again mentions of the Occupation (see post #23) are met with either denial that the Occupation plays a role in criticism of Israel, or attempts to turn the discussion into one about antisemitism (or in this case genocide inspired by antisemitism) where there's a pretence that criticism of Israel happens in a totally unprovoked way, coz it's not like Israel has done anything wrong. It's a very transparent and clumsy tactic, imo, and one that is a bit disturbing, as anyone who'd use the polls in the past to try to show that Israelis are genocidal maniacs would be denounced by the very same people who use the same 'logic' as bigots. And my view is that whether someone is accusing Israelis or Palestinians as being genocidal maniacs, they're both very wrong and engaging in what is in my view bigoted views and making negative generalisations about both populations....

[shira]

45. I thought I made myself very clear...

Whether it's 84% of Israelis or Palestinians with such views (WRT favoring the killing of innocent random people) or only 0.84% of either population, I wouldn't object to any derogatory description of these people. Probably the same as you not objecting to any description of Hebron settlers, people who you don't believe deserve any sympathy if deliberately targeted and killed (like the recent rock throwing incident).

I imagine if 84% of Israelis held Mercaz Harav views against Palestinians, I and the rest of "Team Israel" would be far more horrified and disappointed with the vast majority of Israelis than "Team Palestine" lets on WRT the vast majority of the people they represent. I'd point to the 16% who are not that way - and further - to those who not only denounce the rest of the 84% but very loudly and clearly stand up for the 'other', the targets of such hate. It's very disturbing and chilling that Team Palestine generally doesn't do this. They deny there's a problem and point to occupation in their whataboutery.

Again, I have no issue with 84% of any population - Jews, Arabs, Europeans, Americans, or 3rd worlders - who favor killing random children - being described in any derogatory way. It's hard to feel any sympathy or empathy whatsoever with such people although I wouldn't wish evil upon them or justify those who murder them. It seems that's how you feel WRT Hebron settlers. As bigoted as many (not all of them) might be - I doubt greater than 84% of them favor the slaughter of random, innocent Palestinian teens. It seems clear you believe all Hebron settler adults are worse than the Palestinians in favor of Mercaz Harav and that their being deliberate targets for murder is justified.

Lastly, if I thought that the will of those 84% of Israelis (if 84% favored Mercaz Harav vs. Palestinians) was being backed by and promoted from their government, there's simply no way I could ever support their government or argue that it has a right to exist. Ask yourself if the Palestinian government is doing all it can to turn around the views of those 84% of Palestinians. Or whether they're trying make that percentage even greater...

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Okay, I'll take what you said as saying you do think Palestinians are genocidal maniacs...

Which is a revolting belief to have, though far too many American extremists hold such disgusting views of Palestinians. They're purveyors of hate and unending conflict, and are the ones that hold the hatred and bigotry they loudly accuse the Palestinian people of. It doesn't seem to dawn on them that their very selective way of applying the label of 'innocent' to Israelis and 'guilty' to Palestinians is just as easily used by extremists on the other side of the fence but in reverse, and in both cases they focus only on soundbytes they can use while ignoring all context (in the case of so-called 'supporters' of Israel, it's to totally ignore the dispossession and occupation of the Palestinian people, and on the other side it's to ignore that Israel does have legitimate concerns about its security.

It seems clear you believe all Hebron settler adults are worse than the Palestinians in favor of Mercaz Harav and that their being deliberate targets for murder is justified.

Huh? Where the hell are you getting that idea from?? I most certainly don't justify the murder of any civilian, and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking liar...

[shira]

47. I don't generalize. But you did WRT Hebron settlers....

"I feel terrible for the child dying, but can't feel any sympathy for the father, who was an extremist. Like Palestinian militants, if you live by the sword yr likely to die by the sword..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x366127#367949

That's justifying the murder of a civilian.

I can't say I feel that way WRT any of the 84% who favor the murder of innocent Jewish teens at Mercaz Harav. I doubt you do either, so I wonder why you have a different view WRT those 84% and Hebron settlers. How are Hebron settlers worse in your opinion?

=====

And you didn't answer me. What do you think of those 84% of Palestinians in favor of killing innocent Jewish teens at Mercaz Harav? Are you horrified, deeply disturbed, or disgusted with their views - with the vast majority of Palestinians?

=====

Lastly, I don't recall Robert Bernstein over generalizing or calling anyone genocidal maniacs, so why did you bring that up?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No, I didn't....

I did not justify anyone's murder. Not feeling sympathy for someone dying is NOT justifying their death. And pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that those who live by the sword tend to die by the sword isn't justifying someone's death either. In the same thread you copied that from, a 'supporter' of Israel called the killing of a Palestinian child assisted suicide. Just wondered if you saw that and found that as disturbing as I did...

I didn't answer you because you didn't bother telling me whether or not you view the Palestinian people as genocidal maniacs. So I'll answer now. To answer this, I ask myself what the actual poll question was, what organisation carried out the poll, and what was going on prior to the question being asked that might account for the answers. Then again if I were a zealoted anti-Palestinian type, I'd ignore all that and rush to brand the Palestinians as latter day Nazis ;)

Lastly, I don't recall Robert Bernstein over generalizing or calling anyone genocidal maniacs, so why did you bring that up?

Huh? Where did I say that Bernstein had called anyone genocidal maniacs? He's strongly implying that's the case with the references in the article to how Arabs lap up this supposed incitement to genocide. Yep, no generalising there! :]

[shira]

49. You view all Hebron settlers as people undeserving of sympathy for being murdered, right?

Do you believe they're all militants? Are they all different from settlers in other areas of the West Bank? It certainly looks like you're generalizing and justifying their murders.

And you still didn't answer WRT the 84% of Palestinians in favor of Mercaz Harav. It unfortunately represents the vast majority opinion of Palestinians. That 84% figure came from a Palestinian poll. Do you question that poll too? You think it's highly likely that was bullshit for some reason?

Bernstein didn't say all Arabs lap up incitement, but it appears with that 84% figure that the vast majority certainly does. I don't see anything wrong with writing that. I think it's more disturbing you're pretending those statistics and facts don't exist and that you're trying to turn it all around by branding Bernstein and others as racists and bigots.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I guess yr going to tell me what I think about that anyway...

And you still didn't answer WRT the 84% of Palestinians in favor of Mercaz Harav.

I answered it in exactly the same way you claimed you answered my question. Isn't it interesting that when you 'answered' like that, you claimed you'd clearly answered, but when I used the exact same form of 'answer' suddenly according to you it's not an answer...

Bernstein didn't say all Arabs lap up incitement

What's this? Scotch mist? From the article: 'The real obstacle to long-term peace is the endless and overwhelming words of hate and incitement to genocide effectively spread to Arabs and Palestinians.'

[shira]

51. You're evading. I was very clear...

I didn't generalize into all Palestinians, but very clearly told you the vast majority hold very disturbing, chilling views and could be described - based on those views - in just about any derogatory manner, including genocidal maniacs. If it were 84% of Jews or Germans of WW2 with those views, I'd have no problem with that description of them either. That's as clear as I can get. There are unfortunately some Jews in Israel who call for the killing of Arabs and IMO they are without question genocidal maniacs. Do you think I'm being overly harsh on them?

I'm still waiting for your answer. I was as honest as I could possibly be answering you and I expect the same in return.

'The real obstacle to long-term peace is the endless and overwhelming words of hate and incitement to genocide effectively spread to Arabs and Palestinians.'

What's wrong with that? That incitement is effectively spread to Arabs and Palestinians when 84% are in favor of Mercaz Harav. The very fact that the PA has done nothing whatsoever to try to reverse those numbers - and indeed they're doing just the opposite - is proof enough. That's not how a "centre-left" government should go about its business...

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Yr the one evading. I was every bit as clear as you were with yr 'answer'

Oh, yeah. I keep on forgetting that adding a disclaimer that one's only talking about the vast majority of Palestinians being (insert nasty negative generalisation here) means that one isn't generalising! Strange how that same line of thought is labelled bigotry when the target is Israelis....

I was as honest as I could possibly be answering you and I expect the same in return.

What? You mean you realise that coming straight out and saying that you believe that the vast majority of Palestinians are genocidal maniacs may break the rules of this forum? It must be hard to have to tip-toe around...

Seeing I answered yr question in exactly the same way you answered mine, maybe you should go back and reread what I asked you and this time give a straight answer...

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you wouldn't find anything wrong with Bernstein implying that Palestinians are genocidal maniacs, given that yr dancing round coming straight out and saying that's what you yrself think...

As yr very fixated on polls, I'm going to go digging back through the archives and give you links to some polls that show things like some Israels holding some very ugly views about Arabs. And then I'm going to wait for you to sit there and say you've got no issue at all with anyone who wants to use the most derogatory terms ever to describe the percentage of Israelis who hold those views....

btw, I wonder if anyone else has noticed the way you attempt to link Palestinians with Nazis in more than a few of yr posts?

[shira]

53. You're still silent WRT 84% of all Palestinians favoring Mercaz Harav. No reaction at all....

That's very disturbing. And chilling.

I highly doubt you'd be silent with no reaction if a significant percentage of Israeli Jews were for the killing of random Arabs. So what's preventing you from saying anything?

=============

As to what you expect from me, I wonder what the proper reaction to this Palestinian view should be....

Acceptance?

Indifference?

Denial?

Disgust?

Pretending 84% is not the vast majority of all Palestinians?

Anyone daring to point out the poll results on this 84% WRT Mercaz Harav is bigoted?

Help me out here.

Be clear.

==========

Since you told me what you think of my views, I'll tell you what I think. I think denying or being indifferent to Palestinian polls like Mercaz Harav - to not recognize such hatred or pretend it doesn't exist, or not challenge such hatred, to make excuses for the clearest cases of antisemitism and then attack those who point it out - is without question hateful.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I answered yr question exactly the same way you answered mine...

Do you need me to give you a blow by blow run-through of how you described yr non-answer as a very clear answer, and then immediately after that insisted I haven't answered you when I used the same style of answering as you did?

As to what I expect from you, I expect you to be capable of answering a question with a simple yes or no, followed by an explanation of why you believe what you do. So here's the question again: So are you claiming that Palestinians are genocidal maniacs?

I've got no idea what yr going on about in the rest of yr post. What you need to do is state what yr argument is, then support that argument. Fixating on some poll to try to argue something you haven't stated clearly is pretty scattergun and missing the mark.

But I'll feed the poll fixation.

'A Haifa University survey investigating Arabs and Jews' views on one another reveals disturbing results.

The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350467,00.html

Quoting yr own words back to you from only a few posts back: 'the vast majority hold very disturbing, chilling views and could be described - based on those views - in just about any derogatory manner', let's see what sort of derogatory manner of description of those who responded that way that you'll come up with, though I suspect the rush to throw derogatory labels around only applies when it comes to Palestinians, not Israelis :)

[shira]

62. When quoting my words back, is that what you truly believe about 75% of Israel's Jewish youth?

That applies equally to the 57% of Arab youth in Israel also who believe Jews are unclean, according to Ynet? And the 25% of Arab youth who believe Jews are uneducated, etc..?

============

Also, you wrote in the other thread that all settler extremists are scumbags.

Does that also apply to Palestinians who favored Mercaz Harav, in your opinion? Or Palestinians who believe in the Hamas edict that Jews need to be hunted down and killed?

Just looking for consistency.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Yr the one who said any derogatory term was acceptable, so how about you get the ball rolling?

Yr always so quick off the mark when it comes to Palestinians. Why the sudden coyness now yr faced with Israelis with ugly views?

Yes, I did say that extremist settlers are scumbags. Why? Do you disagree?

[shira]

64. I'll get the ball rolling, but I expect you to answer in kind....

Settler extremists who support murdering Arabs and Palestinians who support murdering Jews are all scumbags and genocidal maniacs.

That's what I believe.

Do you disagree? How would you put it?

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Wow, that ball hasn't moved an inch. Where are the derogatory terms for those Israeli students?

This is like pulling teeth...

Extremist settlers are scumbags. You clearly have an issue with them being described as such, and add some convoluted caveat to what you said, Maybe you could explain why you think extremist settlers should be carefully divided into sub-groups where some are and aren't scumbags. Like, which extremists aren't scumbags in yr opinion?

[shira]

66. You're still evading after all this time, playing games....

I'll remind you that the OP is about Bernstein's article and PA incitement to killing and terror.

Anyone for the deliberate killing of innocents - Jewish, Palestinian, or other - is a scumbag genocidal maniac. What's difficult about this? What don't you agree with?

Are you conflating people with bigoted views (for whatever reason they're bigoted - from being young to stupidity or just plain malice) to those who take it one giant leap further and are for the extermination of others? As to settler extremists, I think you need to explain exactly what you believe they're all about. Religious whackadoodles are extremists but they're not necessarily bigoted scumbags or genocidal. They're whackadoodles.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be evading, seeing I'm just going on what you post...

I'll remind you that the OP is about Bernstein's article and PA incitement to killing and terror.

Gosh, thanks for reminding me! It appears you lost the plot somewhere not long after I posted my response to the OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x367558#367709

Anyone for the deliberate killing of innocents..

And there's the crux of the matter. According to some here, Israel NEVER deliberately kills innocents, and all Israelis are innocents...

btw, just like others who wildly fling around the genocide accusation when it comes to I/P, you clearly have no clue at all as to what genocide is. As shocking and wrong as it is for someone to support the killing of another person, that does not make them a genocidal maniac....

Extremist settlers believe that the West Bank is theirs and the Palestinians are interlopers who they harrass, attack, and sometimes murder. Hebron is the worst of them all, and if yr still objecting to them being described as scumbags, educating yrself about what those settlers do would be a good idea.

Doesn't this video warm the cockles of yr heart? I want you to watch this and explain to me why anyone wouldn't think those people aren't scumbags. And on a different note, did you notice how after the soldier thought she'd stopped filming, he got nasty and started telling her to shut up etc?

http://www.btselem.org/video/2007/08/settlers-door-hebron

'Over the years, settlers in the city have routinely abused the city's Palestinian residents, sometimes using extreme violence. Throughout the second intifada, settlers have committed physical assaults, including beatings, at times with clubs, stone throwing, and hurling of refuse, sand, water, chlorine, and empty bottles. Settlers have destroyed shops and doors, committed thefts, and chopped down fruit trees. Settlers have also been involved in gunfire, attempts to run people over, poisoning of a water well, breaking into homes, spilling of hot liquid on the face of a Palestinian, and the killing of a young Palestinian girl.'

http://www.btselem.org/hebron

So, do you still need assistance on knowing what the extremist settlers are about? There's plenty more for you to read and watch...

[shira]

68. You're evading the question about Palestinians who are for the Hamas edict...

...to kill Jews hiding behind rocks and stones, as well as the one about Palestinians who support Mercaz Harav AND who are for rockets on Israeli towns.

How would you describe these people? Scumbags? Genocidal? Maniacs?

As to extremist settlers, do you think every last one of them is a super ginormous bigot? That all are for the killing of Arabs? None are just religious whackadoodles who feel they have a right to live in their ancient biblical homelands?

It just appears you have this belief about the settler just killed from rocks with his baby, as if you're a mindreader who has super powers and you just know he's a terrible bigot who likes seeing Arabs killed. How do you get those super powers?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. No, yr just running round in circles. I answered it exactly the same way you answered my question...

If you want a different answer, then answer the question I asked you with a proper yes or no, accompanied by an explanation of why you think so. Just to remind you, the question was do you think Palestinians are genocidal maniacs?

Yr still flailing round about the extremist settlers? I really wish you'd taken the time to watch the video I linked to. No one with a shred of decency could not be appalled by the actions of those extremist settlers.

But as I said in my previous post, there's much much more when it comes to the extremist settlers to educate yrself with.

Here's another video. It's the incident where you falsely claimed in another thread that the settlers were provoked and hadn't started any violence...

http://972mag.com/watch-new-video-of-settler-attack-in-anatot-released/24526/

I should go looking for some of settlers uprooting olive trees,and attacking Palestinian kids on their way to school. And they even attack the IDF. I'm sure they're all just misunderstood and very nice folk who I should be ashamed of calling scumbags! ;)

Also, the guy who died after being hit by a rock and losing control of his car was an extremist settler. No mindreading involved when he lived in Hebron and Dov Lior is his chief rabbi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x366127#366141

just saw yr edit. Yr really totally confused if you think I believe an extremist settler is only a scumbag if they want to see Arabs killed. Seriously, watch the first video I posted and come back and explain to me why those people aren't complete and utter scumbags. Why would anyone want to defend those sickos?

[shira]

70. How many ways do I need to answer this? I made myself clear numerous times.

The answer is No.

Only those who cheer on, support, and promote the killing of innocent civilians. I'll add to that any others who make excuses for these people, ignore, deny or minimize what they say.

Now please go back in the thread and answer my questions.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. You needed to answer it with a yes or no, which you only just did...

It's interesting that you decide you were being clear before that, but when I answered yr question the same way you answered mine, you repeatedly claimed I hadn't answered it ;)

So, despite yr obvious ignorance about what genocide is, you believe that a vast majority of Palestinians are genocidal maniacs because of one poll question relating to a specific attack on a yeshiva. Not content with that, you now add to it that anyone who doesn't agree with you on that is also a genocidal maniac. There ya go. I must be a genocidal maniac seeing I definately don't agree with you. I find the response to that one poll question disturbing, but in no way do I think it makes those who answered yes to it genocidal maniacs. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It is not a single act of mass-murder carried out by one individual. ..

Those who aren't obsessively focused on demonising the vast majority of Palestinians would have wondered what could have brought on such a strong support of violence in that poll. Having seen what the pollster himself said, his explanation makes sense...

'The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey, taken last week, showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.

“There is real reason to be concerned,” Mr. Shikaki said in an interview at his West Bank office. His Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which conducts a survey every three months, is widely viewed as among the few independent and reliable gauges of Palestinian public opinion.

His explanation for the shift, one widely reflected in the Palestinian media, is that recent actions by Israel, especially attacks on Gaza that killed nearly 130 people, an undercover operation in Bethlehem that killed four militants and the announced expansion of several West Bank settlements, have led to despair and rage among average Palestinians who thirst for revenge.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[azurnoir]

72. Thanks the poll which 'proves' whatever was taken days after the 'prequel' to OCL

Operation Hot Winter I believe it was called and unfortunately it has been largely forgotten, after all whats a hundred or so dead Palestinians? :sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Yep, went and looked into that poll a day or so ago...

Thought I'd let Shira dig herself even deeper before I posted that. As you can see (and btw I'm surprised anyone reads these marathon sub-threads), it was swiftly dismissed as 'excusing' the attack...

:hi:

[shira]

77. It proves 'whatever'....you mean incitement to antisemitic attacks on Jews?

Oh right, it's not about antisemitism at all.

It just can't be. These Palestinians would certainly be for an attack on any Israeli group, including Arabs.

:eyes:

Not even Gilad Atzmon lovers like Walt and Mearsheimer or their adoring fanbase is driven in any way by antisemitism.

No one is.

It's all about being for a just cause and against Israel's occupation and oppression.

:sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

78. yes an IDF campaign aimed at punishing Palestionians can incite

attacks on Israeli's but is that really a surprise? or even to answer poll questions about such as being viewed as positive

as to the rest it seem to be the usual false allegations and generalizations?

[shira]

73. Well, as long as there's an excuse for wanting to murder random Jews, that makes it much better

Palestinian refugees are treated worse elsewhere in the Arab world but I doubt a significant percentage is in favor of killing random innocents in the countries where they reside. You're still ignoring and denying antisemitic incitement by Hamas and the PA.

You'll note in the very same poll and from the same NYTimes article, 64% support rocket attacks on Sderot and Ashkelon. So it isn't all about a specific attack on teenage students that can be easily explained away.

In addition, the recent poll sponsored by the Israel Project - conducted by Democratic Party Pollster Stan Greenberg in coordination with the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion - shows 73% of Palestinians in favor of the Hamas hadith about killing Jews hiding behind rocks and trees. In addition 53% are in favor of teaching songs of hatred for Jews in Palestinian schools.

It's not just about the occupation. There's something extremely ugly behind this.

Want to try again?

[Violet_Crumble]

74. No, no-one's said that at all. You need to read things carefully before hitting the reply button....

Here's what the pollster said again, not that you'll bother reading it even if I post it in the next ten posts, but it's always good to remind you for the benefit of those who are reading:

'The pollster, Khalil Shikaki, said he was shocked because the survey, taken last week, showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years in the Palestinian areas. Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel.

“There is real reason to be concerned,” Mr. Shikaki said in an interview at his West Bank office. His Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which conducts a survey every three months, is widely viewed as among the few independent and reliable gauges of Palestinian public opinion.

His explanation for the shift, one widely reflected in the Palestinian media, is that recent actions by Israel, especially attacks on Gaza that killed nearly 130 people, an undercover operation in Bethlehem that killed four militants and the announced expansion of several West Bank settlements, have led to despair and rage among average Palestinians who thirst for revenge.'

Do you understand the difference between explaining something and excusing something? It appears you don't. You explained it with the vast majority of Palestinians are genocidal maniacs crap, whereas the pollster explained it by looking at what had been happening at that time which would cause such a high level of rage among Palestinians. That's in no way excusing it...

You didn't bother watching either of those videos I posted showing how Palestinians are treated by extremist settlers, did you? If you had, you wouldn't be starting some crap about how they're treated worse elsewhere.

I see yr now back to touting that dodgy poll commissioned by an extremely partisan pro-Israel bunch that came up with results that were very different from polls done only weeks or months earlier...

Sorry, but I find yr constant urge to compare Palestinians with the Nazis and to label the vast majority of them genocidal maniacs every bit as revolting as when similar crap is aimed at Israelis.

[shira]

76. The poll you're trying to dismiss was conducted by DNC pollster Stan Greenberg...

...in coordination with a Palestinian polling firm.

More denial of blatant antisemitism.

And did you forget to comment about the NYT mention of 64% of Palestinians in favor of rocket attacks?

[Violet_Crumble]

79. And? It was commissioned by a partisan pro-Israel American organisation...

As I've already told you, that's not the only thing that makes the poll questionable. It also gave results that were very different than those of another poll carried out only a month of so beforehand. That alone would cause most to pause and to want to look into the methodology that was used...

Blatant antisemitism? You were trying to argue that the strong support shown for the attack on the yeshiva was genocidal and that the vast majority of Palestinians are genocidal maniacs. I'm not sure what blatant antisemitism is being denied. Is it because a rational explanation for the rage that would cause people polled to answer yes to that question is seen as 'blatant antisemitism'?

If I forget to comment on something that I think is relevant to the argument, I'll go back and re-edit my post. Otherwise I don't bother. For example, when you were asking for help in knowing what the extremist settlers are about, I provided links to two very disturbing videos of attacks by extremist settlers, neither of which you made any comment about. That was relevant to the argument, so I was a bit surprised at the silence. On the other hand, expecting me to comment on something that isn't relevant to yr argument that the vast majority of Palestinians are genocidal maniacs is a bit unrealistic, as I have a reasonably busy life happening, and when I post, I like to focus on what's relevant to the 'discussion'...

[shira]

81. Yes, continue pretending Stan Greenberg and a Palestinian Polling firm have zero to do with it...

And I call BS on your poll a month earlier contradicting those results. I highly doubt any poll completed a month or so prior contradict these results.

Lastly, you've done this denial bit before. Remember the Pew Poll in which close to 100% of Palestinians expressed negative feelings towards Jews? Yeah, you ignored that one too.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Yr not comprehending what I'm telling you.The Israel Project probably had a lot to do with it...

Well, you can call BS on whatever you want to, but seeing you don't even know what poll is being referred to or what questions in both polls I'm talking about, the calling BS comes across as a bit of blind lashing out...

Talking of denial, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the explanation for the poll results that showed strong support for the attack on the yeshiva was given by the pollster, and it had to do with what had been going on during that period of time, and was evidence of the rage and despair Palestinians were feeling at that time. As far as explanations go, it's far more rational and doesn't involve the demonisation that automatically labelling the vast majority of Palestinians as genocidal maniacs does...

And speaking of ignoring stuff, I notice you totally ignored both those videos I posted links to that showed extremist settlers abusing and attacking innocent Palestinian civilians...

[shira]

91. So what? A reputable Palestinian polling firm conducted the survey.

Just more antisemitic denial, kinda like rejecting the Pew Polls recently showing over 95% of Palestinains having negative feelings about Jews.

And while I agree with you that 84% of Palestinians being for the Yeshiva massacre doesn't make them out to be genocidal maniacs, it certainly lends credibility to the Pew Poll showing how antisemitic they are towards Jews in particular, which is what the Israel Project Poll also demonstrated.

All of which you reject.

It's not surprising, however. Since the Anti-Israel Brigade (you call them pro-Palestinian organizations) won't condemn, marginalize, or disown Nazis from their ranks like Gilad Atzmon - in fact "respected" leftists like Richard Falk and John Mearsheimer promote his fascism - it's not surprising they won't accept any evidence Palestinians are antisemitic either.

I understand.

It's simply anti-Palestinian to admit to all the antisemitism that permeates the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel movement.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. And a highly partisan 'pro-Israel' group commissioned it...

Who do you think comes up with the questions and the target group to be polled? Do you know anything at all about the methodology of the poll, or does all that not matter because a result from that poll can be used to demonise Palestinians?

Strongly disagreeing with the explanation you've given for the poll result, and providing a rational explanation from the pollster himself is NOT antisemitic denial. It's not antisemitic to be opposed to people trying to portray the Palestinian people in a very negative manner...


And while I agree with you that 84% of Palestinians being for the Yeshiva massacre doesn't make them out to be genocidal maniacs,

What? You've changed yr mind in the space of a few posts? Only a few posts ago you said in response to me asking if you believed Palestinians were genocidal maniacs 'Only those who cheer on, support, and promote the killing of innocent civilians. I'll add to that any others who make excuses for these people, ignore, deny or minimize what they say.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=367558&mesg_id=368131


It's simply anti-Palestinian to admit to all the antisemitism that permeates the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel movement.


That's just ridiculous. While antisemitism and anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry exist, anyone who tries to make out that either is a predominant feature or cause of the conflict is either ignorant or doing it deliberately in order to foster more hatred than there already is...

[azurnoir]

80. shira no one is denying the results we are telling you they were influeneced by the timing of poll

just days after what was the prequel to OCL in which over 100 Palestinians were killed many of them women children in Gaza alone

[shira]

82. So what influenced 73% of Palestinians recently polled who want Jews dead...

...according to the Hamas hadith about killing Jews behind rocks and trees?

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493

And please, no bullshit about the Israel Project. As if Stan Greenberg and a Palestinian Polling firm caught Likud 'cooties' working in coordination with a pro-Israel firm.

[azurnoir]

83. you certainly do bestow Hamas with a great deal of religious authority

if indeed the quote is a Hadith it is much older than Hamas here are a list of Hadiths

Sunni Muslims view the Six major Hadith collections as their most important. They are, in order of authenticity <1>:

Sahih Bukhari, collected by Imam Bukhari (d. 870), includes 7275 ahadith
Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), includes 9200 ahadith
Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i (d. 915)
Sunan Abu Dawood, collected by Abu Dawood (d. 888)
Jami al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)
Sunan ibn Majah, collected by Ibn Majah (d. 887)

The first two, commonly referred to as the Two Sahihs as an indication of their authenticity, contain approximately seven thousand ahadith altogether if repetitions are not counted, according to Ibn Hajar.<2>

This page was last modified on 16 June 2011 at 13:33.

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

as to the poll I consider the source Frank Luntz/Jennifer Mizarhi's the Israel Project they also in the same poll claimed Palestinians were against a 2 state solution they accomplished by framing Israel only as the Jewish State bvut if that's what you want and need to hear then it a winner everytime BTW how's it going with campaign to convince folks that the PA/PLO is demanding the original 1947 partition borders ?

The Israel Project 'caught' Likud cooties? heck IMO they helped to develop them in the first place no need to catch

[shira]

84. So Stan Greenberg and the Palestinian Polling firm turned into dupes of the Israel Project?

As to the PLO demanding 1947 borders, they've done that before...

Abbas: Israel should "suffice" with 1947 UN partition lines
Source: WAFA news agency, Sept. 26, 2009

Mahmoud Abbas, PA Chairman, speech in Cuba:
"It is a great honor for me to be here today at the Cuban Friendship House… I have always sensed the warmth of the relations in every meeting with Cuban authorities…
I hope to receive President Castro for a visit to our country, Palestine, when Palestine is liberated from Israeli occupation, and when we have a Palestinian state with its capital in the honored Jerusalem… We are struggling through peaceful means in order to achieve our rights; we have therefore announced that we go along with international legitimacy, with the UN resolutions since '47 to this day. We want these resolutions to be implemented, and for - UN decisions - of international legitimacy to assume their rightful place. We do not want double criteria, whereby resolutions are implemented in one place but not implemented somewhere else…
We demand of the world to call upon Israel to implement these resolutions and to halt the settlement activity in our land, and to suffice with the territory apportioned to it in the UN resolution."

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=826

[azurnoir]

85. who is paying Stan Greenberg, to do the poll?

and as to Abbas which UN resolution he doesn't say wasn't the Green Line established by the UN too?
Nice try though well sort of

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

97. what do you mean by AIB? sounds like a team designation or something n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

89. That would be The Israel Project, a highly partisan pro-Israel organisation...

btw, did you notice that the link used in the post yr replying to was to a group run by someone who's a settler, associates with Pamela Geller, and contributes to the making of a bigoted anti-Muslim film?

[shira]

92. And a reputable Palestinian poll conducted this highly "partisan and biased" survey. Bullshit.

Look, the NYT referred to a poll showing 84% of Palestinians have antisemitic views of Jewish Yeshiva teens, favoring terror attacks against them. If anyone here were in favor of the same against a Muslim school, is there anybody who'd question their anti-Muslim bigotry?

That poll confirms Pew Polling from earlier this year, showing more than 95% of Palestinians have negative views of Jews.

You can't accept the findings from either of those polls either - and the Israel Project has nothing to do with them.

=======

You brought up PMW's association with Pam Gellar. If you don't have anything besides Gellar standing in a photo next to Itamar Marcus, what do you really have? OTOH, so-called leftist progressives from Richard Falk to John Mearsheimer, from the Mondoweiss crowd to the Free Gaza movement all adore and promote Gilad Atzmon's Naziism that is on par with David Duke's. These are all people and organizations you have no problem with.

So really, which is worse?

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I've addressed yr confusion over polling in another post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=367558&mesg_id=368275

I'll address yr ongoing defense of the settler who runs PMW. You ignored that he participated in making an anti-Muslim film. Is that no big deal or something? If it was an antisemitic film, it'd be a whole different story. And someone like that who associates with Pam Geller is a bigot. Maybe not as big a bigot as Geller, but I sure wouldn't be happily posting repeated links to a site run by a hatemonger like that. Don't tyy and deflect away from what he is. You should seriously rethink yr defense of someone like that...

[shira]

95. I'm not confused. You simply reject any poll's findings about Palestinian antisemitism and hatred.

As to Itamar Marcus, neither you nor I knows what his political views are.

He may very well be a big, bad bigot but where's the evidence for this? Meanwhile, we know someone like Gilad Atzmon is a nazi and certain leftists you admire, from Richard Falk to John Mearsheimer, from the Mondoweiss crowd to the Free Gaza movement, ALL adore him. In fact, there are hardly ANY pro-Palestinian organizations and individuals denouncing that nazi for his views. We know his views and we know the people who adore him happily PROMOTE those views - which goes to show how depraved the whole movement is. We don't know a damned thing about Itamar Marcus' views, other than he made some piss poor choices to be in the same photo with Pam Gellar and agreeing to be interviewed for a bigoted movie.

It's okay, I don't expect you to admit to Palestinian antisemitism, no matter what evidence is presented to you. If you can't see it in Atzmon, you won't see it anywhere.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Yr very confused. I do nothing of the sort...

What I reject is yr twisted interpretation of polls where you end up labelling the vast majority of Palestinians as antisemitic and genocidal.

As for Itamar Marcus, I'm not talking about his political views. I pointed out his bigotry, which you appear to be trying to deny. Do you even read what I post? Try to read it instead of going on about something completely different to try to deflect attention away. I've pointed out several times the following facts:

1. He contributed to making an Islamophobic film
2. He associates with Pam Geller
3. He's a settler

Yet there you are trying to make out that he's not a bigot while condemning people for antisemitism at the drop of a hat. 'Piss poor choices'? Show some consistancy, Shira. You condemn people for associating with bigots if they're antisemitic, and you wouldn't call anyone contributing to making an antisemitic film just someone who's made a piss poor choice. You'd be condemning anyone who posted links to any website such an individual runs, but here you are defending Marcus and constantly linking to his site. Disgusting...

[shira]

98. Let's go with Marcus for now...

You're assuming he's a bigot because he's a settler. Are all settlers bigots? Nope.

He was in a snapshot with Gellar. What does that mean? That he promotes her disgusting views? If he does, how do you know it?

Due to his role at PMW, he was interviewed in Obsession. So everyone in the film must be a bigot? Alan Dershowitz? Khaled Abu Toameh? Robert Wistrich, director of an institution devoted to fighting antisemitism?

Is his work at PMW bigoted? As far as we know, all he does is translate Arabic media - and accurately at that.

So really? This is all your hard evidence? It's all you've got?

=================

OTOH, many leftist assholes whose written work is cited constantly here at DU/IP are bigtime enthusiastic promoters of the nazi, Gilad Atzmon. From Jonathan Cook to Richard Falk and John Mearsheimer. From the creeps at Mondoweiss to many of the blowhards at the Free Gaza Movement who were also seen celebrating with insanely genocidal Jew haters from Hamas. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure any of the aforementioned freepers have ever lit into Hamas for their institutional genocidal antisemitism.

When most of the anti-Israel movement (and its fans in the media, academia, governments) promotes, excuses, ignores, or denies the Naziism of Gilad Atzmon, that kinda proves the entire movement is pretty fucking rotten to the core, don't you think?

And given that, why should any of them be expected to ever admit to Palestinian antisemitism - no matter what the evidence is - no matter from which poll?

[Lithos]

99. What is being referred to...

Is a quote in the Hamas charter which is considered Hadith and which concerns Jews.

The poll is whether or not people agree with this charter and passage.

To me the other relevent question is why did Hamas pull out that one verse when there are many, many others which could be used which promote a more constructive context.

L-

[azurnoir]

101. well okay but a question of my own

do you believe that the majority of Palestinians based on this poll are genocidal towards either Jews or Jewish Israels? I think that was the question being debated at least originally

and yes I am aware that the quote is a part of the Hamas charter I was not aware that the Hamas charter was considered a 'religious' writing or Hadith

eta IMO the reason Hamas would chose this particular passage is quite clear as Hamas has in the past made its intentions towards Israel quite clear with the refusal of even simple recognition of Israel's 'right to exist' and its refusal to renounce violence more recently Hamas has very occasionally made noises that it maybe-possibly-might-could change maybe someday, however the the release of Gilag Schalit if indeed it comes to pass is hopeful maybe but all that being said Hamas needs to go the 'dustbin of history'

[Shaktimaan]

102. the release of Gilag Schalit if indeed it comes to pass is hopeful ????

Senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya says the Shalit-for-terrorists deal proves kidnapping works, and he promises more abductions. The Israeli Cabinet late Tuesday night approved freeing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit for 1,027 terrorists and security prisoners.

Al-Hayya, a Gaza legislator and a senior academic and political figure, told the Chinese news agency Xinhua, “Our prisoners can only be released through this way. The release of prisoners will lead to a bigger victory and will break forever the siege that had been imposed on the Gaza Strip for five years.”

Last week, he urged Palestinian Authority terrorists to kidnap more Israeli soldiers to gain the release of all prisoners, including terrorists, in Israeli jails.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/148713

[azurnoir]

103. The article you link to is already a thread and I have already commented

on it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x368378

I worded my comment the way I did because Gilad is not yet safely home and albeit appears that everything is a go at this moment it has not yet happened and it seems a counting chickens prior to hatching thing consider it a done deal till it is indeed done

[Lithos]

104. I'll try for an answer - am at work.

do you believe that the majority of Palestinians based on this poll are genocidal towards either Jews or Jewish Israels? I think that was the question being debated at least originally

I think you can't roll up the beliefs of Israeli's or Palestinians in black/white sound bites. I do think that the conflict has waged long enough that there is a growing tribalism (us vs. them) which is creating some nasty stereotypes. While there has been growing trend of anti-Semitism in Arab countries beginning in the 19th century, I believe what is going on today is a modern form which started in 1948 and inherits a strong Western basis due to the rise of Arab nationalism and the convenience of Israel/Jews as a figurehead. A partial analogy would be the mutual treatment of the Japanese leading up to and including the World War II time period. Do people really believe it? Some do, but for the most part it likely represents convenient thinking and most go on with their lives without a thought.

One of the big issues the Palestinian society has is that most of the political and power groups are rather intolerant of other ideas, Hamas being one of the most powerful and one of the worst in that category. What this intolerance creates is a lack of alternatives for people to identify with.

and yes I am aware that the quote is a part of the Hamas convent/charter I was not aware that the Hamas charter was considered a 'religious' writing or Hadith

The issue is more than that one passage. Yes, the Hamas convent/charter ostensibly sets forth as its ideal to follow the Islamic scripture and tradition. However in practice it seems to represent a rather a very narrow, reactionary political view which follows a revised (ie, fictional) Islamic tradition to promote a very conservative and nationalistic agenda. The charter itself includes numerous citations of the Quran and Hadith in order to define purpose, intent and specific calls to action, but it is not a religious document.

IMHO, the convent/charter is a document which cites religious material to either set a tone or justify a rather particular world viewpoint which in this case places the West and in particular Judaism as the cause of the woes of Islam. The Convent itself includes many conspiratorial elements designed to justify attacks on Judaism including citations from Protocols of Zion as well as obviously anti-semitic conspiratorial statements that the Zionists (Jews) were behind the French and Russian revolutions as well as World War I and II, all for the purposes of making money and establishing a base of power.

Here is an example of one of the more egregious sections.

For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

"So often as they shall kindle a fire for war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).

The imperialistic forces in the Capitalist West and Communist East, support the enemy with all their might, in money and in men. These forces take turns in doing that. The day Islam appears, the forces of infidelity would unite to challenge it, for the infidels are of one nation.

"O true believers, contract not an intimate friendship with any besides yourselves: they will not fail to corrupt you. They wish for that which may cause you to perish: their hatred hath already appeared from out of their mouths; but what their breasts conceal is yet more inveterate. We have already shown you signs of their ill will towards you, if ye understand." (The Family of Imran - verse 118).

It is not in vain that the verse is ended with Allah's words "if ye understand."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

My personal take is the religious pieces suffer very weak theological underpinnings, are cherry-picked, and are a mask to drive an narrow-minded agenda much like the ultra-extreme Christians do here in the US. And back to my earlier comments, Hamas is very good at controlling the dialogue and limiting the available pool of ideas so that more moderate ones are not available.

Do I think Hamas can change? Some of the people certainly can change, but given the rather specific ideology to which Hamas has attached and built itself, any change which recognizes Israel would never happen without an almost complete renunciation of Hamas' ideological foundations. So, even if it were called Hamas, it would not be Hamas.

[azurnoir]

105. Thanks for taking the time for a well reasoned post

it is quite true that use of quotes from religious texts in political 'manifesto's' of any sort are usually cherry picked to fit the needs of the politics being put forth in that manifesto.

The parts of the Hamas charter quoted seem to be on their face beyond ridiculous sort of like "Communists, Freemasons, and Rotary Clubs"-Oh My

and WW2 Jews did that for profit? and 6 million dead was what collateral? oh wait are there also claims that never happened? ridiculous again

but you are correct if Hamas changed so radically they would no longer be Hamas

[Shaktimaan]

100. I find your post shocking.

I'd like to address these, point by point.

1 - NEVER mention the Occupation. That way there's no legitimate reason to criticise Israel, so any criticism must be antisemitism
Which one of the examples he gave could be considered "legitimate criticism" based on the occupation? These are refusals to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The call for genocide against all Jews. Naming the destruction of Israel as a goal. He never cited that ANY criticism is anti-semitic. He rightly cited statements that were blatently anti-semitic!

2 - Ensure that the PA is thrown into the same sentence as Hamas so that people will see them as one and the same. If they don't, quickly label them antisemitic.
When did he label anyone anti-semitic for distinguishing between Hamas and the PA?

3 - Accuse Arabs of being genocidal as many times as possible, while being ready to spring into action and label anyone who uses the word *genocide* in the same sentence as Israel as antisemite.
Well, these examples are of Arab leaders openly calling for genocide. Israel's leadership not only doesn't make such statements, but Israel has a huge Arab population itself. Conversely, the sizable Jewish populations from Arab states were entirely expelled.

4. Link to extremist sites like PalWatch and Arutz Sheva, and inform people reading that these are scholars of international repute. Label anyone who disagrees antisemitic.
He never called anyone "scholars of international repute" or labeled anyone anti-semitic for disagreeing. You overlook the key point of whether the quote he took from PalWatch was accurate or not.

5. Call the UN antisemitic, forgetting the role of the UN in Israel's creation and that Israel is a full member of the UN. Call anyone who disagrees an antisemite.
The UN helped validate Israel, true. That was over 60 years ago, at a very specific point in history, and before Arab states held the sway they currently do. Israel may be full member in name, but it lacks rights and responsibilities afforded to every other member state. It alone is ineligible to sit on the UNSC or put forward candidates to sit on UN bodies in the Geneva, Nairobi, Rome or Vienna UN offices. Therefore, Israel cannot sit on the Human Rights Council or participate in UN talks on human rights, racism and so on outside of the NYC offices. And of course we can't forget that Israel has been the only state to have its form of nationalism ruled racist by the UNGA. Finally, over 60% of the UNGA resolutions specifically condemn Israel.

This ignores the myriad of small examples as well, such as: In March 2010, the International Organization for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination accused Israel of kidnapping Palestinians to steal their organs. At the 2001 Durban conference copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were sold. There are hundreds more.

Disagreeing with the fact that the UN is anti-semitic does NOT necessarily make one anti-semitic though. Never attribute hate as a motive when ignorance will serve.

6. Imply that Palestine's statehood bid is really a genocidal and antisemitic attempt to destroy Israel. Anyone who disagrees is clearly as antisemitic as the UN!
He implied this WHERE?

7. Assume that anyone reading wouldn't be aware that ugly and bigoted statements are made by both religious extremist Palestinians and Israelis. Ignore the ones made by Israelis and focus only on Palestinian ones. Call anyone who notices that the ones by the extremist Israelis are being ignored ignorant of the complex history of Israel and antisemitic. Ask them why they're singling out only Israeli ones. Only a bigot focuses on only one side!
The whole point of this article was to demonstrate that any bigotry on Israel's part if highlighted by many aid groups while far more prevalent and inflammatory rhetoric is virtually ignored when spoken by Arabs. Asking why Israel is singled out repeatedly seems like a reasonable question to me.

8 - Make sure anything that could be seen as legitimate criticism of Israel is labelled as necessary self-defensive measures. If you have to mention the deaths and mistreatment of Palestinian civilians, make sure it's only for a few seconds in the 'necessary self-defensive measures' sentence before moving onto the Big Issues that are far more important than some dead Palestinians - words. Words hurt far more than bombs and missiles, and anyone who disagrees is antisemitic...
So offering a defense of criticism leveled against Israel counts as "ugly anti-Arab nonsense?" And nowhere does he imply that words hurt more than bombs and missiles. He pointedly mentions the buildup of arms in both Lebanon and Gaza. The article was a critique of how NGOs ignore hateful rhetoric directed at Israel and Jews. The fact that one can also critique Israel for mistreating Palestinian civilians does nothing to render this point less relevant.

----

A common theme running throughout this post Violet is the accusation that anyone who criticizes Israel in any way, regardless of the circumstances, will be labeled an anti-semite. In fact, you seem to think that merely disagreeing with a pro-Israel supporter about anything will then get you accused of being an anti-semite. I see this argument thrown around a lot, and I find it both absurd and hateful. Absurd because I have seen it brandished at least 20x more than I have seen anyone ACTUALLY get accused of anti-semitism. And hateful because it provides a ready shield to those who are actually deserving of the term.

You are above this kind of gross (and, frankly retarded), rhetoric Violet. If you disagree I would love for you to show me an example of your last accusation: Words hurt far more than bombs and missiles, and anyone who disagrees is antisemitic...

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Yr shocked? I'm even more shocked! You owe me an apology...

A common theme running throughout this post Violet is the accusation that anyone who criticizes Israel in any way, regardless of the circumstances, will be labeled an anti-semite.

Absolute bullshit. How did you manage to read my post without seeing the very first line, which IS the theme of my post? 'Bernstein is merely regurgitating the ugly anti-Arab nonsense peddled by RW 'supporters' of Israel. There's nothing new in this formula. The recipe is very simple:' If you want to go ahead and defend RWers, or pretend they don't behave that way, go for yr life, but I'm not sure why you'd want to bother.

If you disagree I would love for you to show me an example of your last accusation: Words hurt far more than bombs and missiles, and anyone who disagrees is antisemitic...

Try reading through this forum to see it for ysrelf. There's long, long outrage-filled threads about Helen Thomas saying something antisemitic, while threads about Palestinians who are killed get very little in the way of responses.

In fact, you seem to think that merely disagreeing with a pro-Israel supporter about anything will then get you accused of being an anti-semite. I see this argument thrown around a lot, and I find it both absurd and hateful.

No, I don't think anything of the sort, and told you so when I replied to yr PM when you sent me a link to yr post. Rather than repeat myself, if you want to argue what I said, feel free to do so in yr reply to this post.

Rather than go point by point through some of the rather nonsensical claims and accusations in yr post, I'll give you a chance to respond based on actually reading the first line of my post this time round, because if you have the same response after reading that first line, there's something seriously wrong...

[Shaktimaan]

30. huh?

In the decades since 1948, the UN has systematically failed to redress the resultant ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of Palestinians from the territory that became Israel.

Didn't the UN form an entire organization dedicated exclusively to managing and advocating for the refugees mentioned here? The only organization of its kind? (While ignoring the Jewish refugees created by the Arab world entirely.) What would Rabbani consider to be more appropriate?

[bemildred]

54. This sentence:

"Most shockingly, human rights groups have become the unwitting accomplices of the United Nations as almost every mainstream human rights group has ignored hate speech and incitement to genocide, not only against Israel but against all Jews."

One does not know where to start. Who is shocked? Mr Bernstein and his friends perhaps? Which human rights groups? WTF does it means to say someone is an "unwitting accomplice" of the UN? Are we not supposed to work with the UN? Then why the babble about UNSC resolutions and what they require elsewhere in the piece? How does one tell "mainstream" NGOs from outsider NGOs and astroturf? Do we just go with the guys that we agree with? Are NGOs to be divided into enemies and friends based on what they criticize? Who is saying there ought to be genocide against all Jews, it's not a popular view since WWII, it makes you look like a Nazi, and why should we take them seriously? Are they well armed or capable or just making noise? Am I really supposed to believe that the UNGA is an anti-semitic enterprise because it frequently takes the Palestinian side? Well, that makes me "anti-semitic" too, and Bernstein can piss off if he thinks he can win me over by calling me names.

[shira]

55. Examples are all the Durban UN hatefests. Major NGO's gladly participated in bashing Jews

Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky

When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ­ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.

Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization's reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch's behavior at the UN's infamous "anti-racism" conference held in Durban, shortly before 9/11. If the organization's actions were assailable there, he says, it would make "it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct."

It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.

<snip>

In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for was a form of anti-Semitism.

The vote to delete the Jewish caucus's proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.

What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the "voices of the victims" had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: "The document gives expression to all voices."

What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.

<snip>

more...
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908

[bemildred]

56. Everybody has an opinion. Does Ms Bayefsky think she is "objective"?

Do you think you are "objective"? I see no reason to think that your opinion, or Ms Bayefsky's, is better than anyone elses, or mine.

Who gets to decide what is "objective" and what is not? I'm pretty sure it's not up to you or me or Ms Bayefsky.

Are we to boycott HRW or the UNHRC merely because we disagree with them about one issue? What if they do some good while erring about other things? Are we just to throw the baby out with the bathwater? It is rare for any country to accept criticism from the UN with pleasure, but we do not therefore say one ought to abandon the UN or that it should cease all efforts.

[shira]

57. The ADL brought the same issues up. 2 days later, HRW and AI denounced the antisemitism

http://www.adl.org/durban/durban_090401d.asp

Bernstein is right. Whether you want to boycott HRW and the UNHRC on just "one issue" is up to you. The point is that antisemitism is a big problem in both the UN and NGO rights groups and it should be denounced and dealt with accordingly rather than ignored, excused, or denied. We should at least agree on that.

[bemildred]

58. I hadn't realized it was being swept under the carpet.

Lordy knows I see enough about it.

[shira]

59. Yeah, pretty much only Jewish or Zionist publications report on it. n/t

[bemildred]

60. I see it regularly in the LA Times.

Not as much a s here, but they don't neglect it.

[Jefferson23]

87. Bernstein makes the charge, "..the United Nations is fueling discord and anti-Semitism."

He is clear, UNLIKE you: "The United Nations is doing this by granting legitimacy to Hamas, a terrorist Islamic group, and the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas. A vote to add to the United Nations a new member state that calls for the elimination of its neighbor and glorifies terrorism will make peace harder — not easier — to achieve."

At least try and stay specific to what he said.


The UN bid is fueling discord and anti-semitism he claims. This is a baseless charge and intellectually dishonest, is it really that
hard for him to talk about the concern of Israel's government, that they want desperately to not see any cases go before
the ICJ? I believe that is one elephant in the room this guy won't deal with. For of course the case would have to then be
made if it happened, that the ICJ is also..you guessed it..anti-semitic. Same fucking bullshit excuses, just a different day, all to avoid accountability. No one suggests bigotry has been removed from the world, but this is absurd. Bernstein won't be satisfied unless
the only members of the UN are Israel and the United States.

on edit for clarity.

[shira]

90. Of course it is. The UN's Durban conferences are Jew hatred on steroids.

The UN appointed Richard Falk is a great admirer of the neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon.

There's no point denying it.