Pro Peace in Palestine is not Anti-Semetic

by JJ Sat Jun 19, 2004 01:49

"At the height of the intifada, there were nine suicide attacks in Israel killing 85 Israelis in just one month (March 2002). In the past three months there have been none.
The overall level of violence has been reduced by more than 70 percent. How did Israel do it? By ignoring its critics and launching a two-pronged campaign of self-defense.
First, Israel targeted terrorist leaders — attacks so hypocritically denounced by Westerners who, at the same time, cheer the hunt for, and demand the head of, Osama bin Laden. The top echelon of Hamas and other terrorist groups has been either arrested, killed or driven underground. ...
Second, the fence. Only about a quarter of the separation fence has been built, but its effect is unmistakable. The northern part is already complete, and attacks in northern Israel have dwindled to almost nothing. ...
These new strategic realities are not just creating a new equilibrium, they are creating the first hope for peace since Arafat officially tore up the Oslo accords four years ago. Once Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and has completed the fence, terrorism as a strategic option will be effectively dead."

Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

by chris bond Sat Jun 19, 2004 02:43

Ive a jewish friend whos opposed to sharon and sympathetic towards the palestinians i suppose that makes him anti semnitic.

Dont believe israeli propaganda.They interpret every critcism of their policies blatantly out of context(or at least they pretend to).Anti isreal is not antisemnitic and im sure they realise that themselves .This is a just a way of justifying their treatment of the palestinian people.

The international community is too soft on isreal.we shouldnt be afraid of them just because they`ll make fraudulant claims about us being racist.

by nordie Sat Jun 19, 2004 02:51

The Practice of Ritual Defamation
by Laird Wilcox • Friday June 11, 2004 at 06:04 AM


Does this bring anyone to mind?

The Practice of Ritual Defamation: How Values, Opinions and Beliefs
are controlled in Democratic Societies
By Laird Wilcox
FOREWORD
Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the
reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a
person, or group of persons, by wrongful, unfair, or malicious speech
or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is
defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions
or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing [him], and
neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so
as to discourage similar independence and "insensitivity" or
non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from
simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized
and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of
a special interest group, and in that it consists of several
characteristic elements.
"Ritual" defamation is not ritualistic because it follows any
prescribed religious or mystical doctrine, nor is it embraced in any
particular scripture. Rather, it is ritualistic because it follows a
predictable, stereotyped pattern which embraces a number of typical
elements, as in a ritual.
THE ELEMENTS OF A RITUAL DEFAMATION ARE THESE:
In a ritual defamation the victim must have violated a particular
taboo in some way, usually by expressing or identifying with a
forbidden attitude, opinion or belief. It is not necessary that he
"do" anything about it or undertake any course of action, only that he
engage in some form of communication or expression.
The method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the character
of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory challenge to
the particular attitudes, opinions or beliefs expressed or implied.
Character assassination is its primary tool.
An important rule is to avoid engaging in honest debate over the
truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only
condemn it. A debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion
on its merits, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to
avoid. The primary goal is censorship or repression.
The victim is very often someone in the public eye, although perhaps
only in a modest way. It could be a school teacher, a writer, a
businessman, a minor official, or merely an outspoken citizen.
Visibility enhances vulnerability to ritual defamation.
An attempt, often successful, is made to involve others in the
defamation. In the case of a public official, other public officials
will be urged to denounce the offender. In the case of a student,
other students will be called upon, and so on.
In order for a ritual defamation to be effective, the victim must be
dehumanized to the extent that he becomes identical with the offending
attitude, opinion or belief, and in a manner which distorts it to the
point where it appears at its most extreme. For example, a victim who
is defamed as a "subversive" will be identified with the worst images
of subversion, such as espionage or treason. A victim defamed as a
"pervert" will be identified with the worst images of perversion,
including child molestation. A victim defamed as a "racist" or
"anti-Semitic" will be identified with the worst images of racism or
anti-Semitism, such as lynchings or gas chambers, and so on.
Also, to be successful, a ritual defamation must bring pressure and
humiliation from every quarter, including family and friends, who may
begin to shun him. If the victim has school children, they may be
taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse publicity. If he is
employed, he may be fired from his job.
Anyone who defends a victim runs the risk of being associated with him
and similarly defamed. Even if their own reputation is beyond
question, their judgment and involvement with the victim may become an
issue. Often, the victim of a ritual defamation becomes isolated and
abandoned.
Any explanation the victim may offer, including the claim of being
misunderstood, is considered irrelevant. To claim truth as a defense
is interpreted as unrepentance, and only compounds the problem. Ritual
defamation is not necessarily an offense of being wrong or incorrect,
but rather "insensitivity" and failing to observe social taboos.
Many victims succumb early on, and go on through a "confessional"
stage, complete with apologies and remorse. They may even denounce
friends associated with the forbidden values, opinions and beliefs, or
claim that they were "duped", as was the case with many suspected
"subversives" during the McCarthy era. If the charges against them
involve "morals," they may claim stress or mental illness as a
defense.
The viciousness of ritual defamation is inspired not merely by
revenge, although that is an important factor, but also to create an
example so others will know of the savaging they can expect for
stepping out of line. Ritual defamation is an important means of
social control.
An Interesting aspect of ritual defamation is its universality. It is
not specific to any particular value, opinion, or belief, or to any
group or subculture. It may be used either for or against any
political, ethnic or religious minority and also by any political,
ethnic or religious minority.
Ritual defamation often appears in paradoxical forms, as in the case
of organizations claiming to oppose defamation itself, even using the
term "anti-defamation" in their name. Psychologically, this may
represent a projective mechanism, in which the organization attempts
to camouflage its own propensities in the form of an official myth, a
kind of agreed-upon fiction that perfumes its actual activities, which
are often transparently evident from its publications.
The power of ritual defamation lies entirely in its capacity to
intimidate. It embraces some elements of primitive superstitious
belief, as in a "curse" or "hex." it also plays on the subconscious
fear most people have of being rejected by the "tribe" and being cut
off from social and psychological support systems. Only the truly
courageous and independent person can withstand the full force of a
ritual defamation, and occasionally they may even survive such an
attempt relatively unscathed.
The weak points of ritual defamation lie in its tendency toward
overkill and its rather transparent maliciousness. Occasionally, a
ritual defamation will fail because of inadequate planning and failure
to correctly estimate the vulnerability of the victim. Ritual defamers
often exhibit extensive projective mechanisms and delusions of
persecution themselves. Although it may appear to be an offensive
maneuver, it's actually quite defensive in nature. As Eric Hoffer
said: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the
means he uses to frighten you." (The True Believer, 1951).
Paradoxically, a ritual defamation often brings about the very values,
opinions and beliefs that it condemns, as in a self-fulfilling
prophecy. It enhances paranoia and hatred, and generally serves to
divide and alienate. It hardens positions and polarizes a situation as
nothing else can. A person accused of supporting a particular belief
may find himself propelled into that position. Politically, for
example, it's quite effective in creating rebels and dissidents. It
has been used in various forms by dictatorships and totalitarian
systems all throughout history. In democratic societies it has become
a favorite tool of special interest groups to vilify and neutralize
their critics and opponents.




And like I say : being anti-Nazi dosen't make one anti-white. So why does being anti-Zionist make you an anti-Semite?

by avi H. Sat Jun 19, 2004 15:21

Zionism is the legitimate expression of the Jewish people's right to self-determination. Even Martin Luther King agreed with that idea. You might find a thin parade of Jews who disagree but they are a very small minorith and are not convincing to anyone familiar with Jewish culture and history.

by Sean Healy Sat Jun 19, 2004 16:41

So when pro-Palestinian commenters castigate Israelis as "Zionazis" or compare the security barrier to the wall around the Warsaw Ghetto or compare Sharon to Hitler or treat Jenin as if it were Babi Yar or exaggerate the Israeli occupation as a land grab or refer to Israeli self-defence as ethnic cleansing or genocide is that legitimate criticism or ritual defamation? Just asking.

by E Miesner Sat Jun 19, 2004 19:08

genocide is genocide
whether it is commited by the SS, the US military (ie. American Indians), the Austrailians, or the Isreali military.

When you drive farmers off thier land, bulldoze homes and olive groves and force then to live in squallid camps without basic sanitation or decent food, deprive them of medical care, shoot them when they complain, deprive them of education etc....

gosh, it sounds like the British policy in Ireland a century and a half ago. It sounds like the US system for putting Indians on reservations. It sounds like Austrailian policy toward Aborigionals. And yes it sounds like Nazi policy toward Jews and others in 1941. Yes dear it IS genocide.

by avi H. Sat Jun 19, 2004 20:23

it is anti-Semitic abuse. Reasoned criticism is not, ranting is. The failure to even contemplate the other side of the argument, i.e. the favourite pastime of a closed mind, will generally also lead to anti-Semitic utterances, as the person concerned refuses to investigate the situation of the Jewish people as seen by most Jews and from the point of view of their culture and history.

by Sean Healy Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:17

E Miesner, please speak more slowly. I still don't understand. In 1941, eight years after the Nazis came to power, the population of Jews in Germany and Europe was declining - rapidly - as result of explicit Nazi policies to kill all the Jews in the world. In 2004, more than half a century after the founding of Israel and nearly four decades after the occupation started, the Palestinian population is bigger than ever. So big, in fact, that Israel is planning to disengage almost entirely from the territories in order to preserve a demographic majority over its dominion.

BTW, Israel never forced anyone to live in squalid refugee camps. Talk to the UN and the Arab states about that one. What an invidious situation the Israelis are in: they are not only the cause of all Palestinian problems, the must be the solution as well. How, exactly, will these passive Palestinians manage to run a state of their own when they finally get one?

by kokomero Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:57

The remark in support of Zionism attributed to Martin Luther King is a lie Avi, as you well know, so kindly desist from spreading disinformation as is your wont.

Secondly your call for reasoned debate is amusing in that you somewhat characteristically for a Zionist punctuate your own postings with emotive outbursts.

Obviously you believe that gentiles have no right to express an opinon on the behaviour of your country and adopt the behaviour of a spoiled child when they do.

by iosaf Mon Jun 21, 2004 14:14

You correctly bring attention to the Isreali role in responsibility for and solution to the problems of a people's who's territories they illegally occupy.
But you made it cleverly seem like a paradox of unfathomable profundity.

Option A.
However It's not that unusual, nor profound, if one's nation state invades another nation's traditionaly territory and occupies it, one is generally thought of as primary source of conflict, and the price for occupation is generally held to be offering solutions to the problems of the occupied.
An example being the US intervention in Iraq.
Saddam ceased to be responsible for the problems of the Iraqi and other people's in that state when the US led an invasion, now the US is responsible for occupation, and has to turn to facilitating a new government, "to be the solution".

Option B.
If the model of intervention is not such, [ invasion - occupation - solution ] then it is to be considered territorial expansion at the interest of the nation-state aggressor, such as that pursued by Germany in central and eastern Europe in the 1940s, or arguably Serbia in the late 20th century. This type of intervention to be succesful in avoiding "solution" to the problems of the occupied, must "move" the occupied, we term this "ethnic cleansing".

Option C.
There is another model for intervention.
It is deemed to be sole form of militarised intervention which is legal, and that is the application of mandate to U.N. led forces after proper debate and resolution amongst the member nations of the U.N.

I suppose, you are aware, that if Isreali is not to "ethnically cleanse", or offer such demographic solution to the palestinian peoples in her occupied territories, which are now _de facto_ Isreali extra-state posessions, then they must move at some stage to offering some other "solution" to the problems of those territories.

I only wish I could be so clever in concocting soundbyte paradoxes as you.

But whether it is the Palestinians or the Isrealis who do it, those people in the middle of this sordid war will some day either have to be given jobs, homes, schools, citizenship rights, or History will remember them as being victims of option b.

by E Miesner Tue Jun 22, 2004 22:51

To say the Isrealis are not responsible for the conditions of the Palistinians and the fact that they are stuck in horrible concentration camps is a bit like saying the US is responsible for the plight of the Jews in WWII because they did not let very many refugees in prior to the holocost. Or it could be like saying the Hope Indians are responsible for the plight of the Navahoes because if they did not have thier need for land and resources the Navahoes could have been kicked off thier land by the US government and gone to Hope territory. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the Chineese. For if they could only take in an extra million people than Isreal could steal all the land they need for now and the Palistinians would have a nice place to go. Perhaps they would feel at home in the deserts of Tibet. The sad thing about your logic Sean is that there are quite a few people in the US and Ireland who do not think deeply enough to see past the silliness of it. And since it is repeated over and over again by the Isreali lobby it is thought of as true by some.

by Joe Bedale Wed Oct 20, 2004 18:31 joealanb at yahoo dot com

Recently I spent some time in Ramalah and Palestine. During my visit I met many people. To a person, both Israeli and Palestinian, the people are really pleasant to be around. In fact, everyone I met appeared to be, by any estimate, a kind, thoughtful, gentle person who would never dream of any unprovoked act of violence against someone else. I love the Palestinians people I met every bit as much as the Israelis whom I met!

Herein lays the problem. There are some people, on both sides, who feel that they are provoked by the other. When both parties have a dispute it makes it difficult to solve the problem. Difficult, but not impossible.

But, there are some, just a few, people, on both sides that hold views that would just seem silly and indefensible if it were not for the religious beliefs that they are tied to!

For example; a family with two children is eating a meal. The oldest child says "I am the oldest; I get to eat all of the dessert!" The other child says, "Well, the dessert is my favorite. I should have all of it because I am the youngest, and should be treated with more understanding!" This soon escalates into one child hiding dead bugs in the other child’s food and the other child stealing pieces of dessert from the other. This would be great fun to watch on TV, but I can tell you how this story would end in the home were I grew up. Dad would step in, sold both children, and send them both to their rooms with out any dessert. Indeed, dessert might just be for mom and dad for a few more days; until both children agreed that they would be satisfied with what mom gave them. Any complaints about the size of the servings would result in immediate loss of the rest of their dessert and being sent to their rooms until the meal was over.

I am saying that there are a few stinkers on both sides that need to be rejected by their peers. Specifically the people who believe Israel should be bull-dozed into the Med and extremist who want the forced eviction of anyone who does not measure-up to their standards are just spreading the evil virus of hatred and violence.

This cycle has got to stop. There is one solution to all of this; love. Love is a powerful tool, when it is true and sincere. (Indeed real love can only be true and sincere.) Don't allow the evil virus of hatred and revenge to poison your heart. It will get into your life and spread and spread until you become the same kind of monster who wronged you in the first place.

Believe me; I understand that is easy for me to say. I have not lost much property, or many loved-ones, or any limbs to the acts of those who are the "Typhoid Mary's" of hate. However, it does not change the fact that Love conquers hate. Hate looks fierce, but it is helpless before the power of love. This is not a one-time "I forgive them for______" type of love. It requires a day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute and moment by moment act of forgiveness and determination to seek the very best for those who might carry some of the evil virus of hate in their hearts and minds. I am not naive- what I am suggesting is very very very hard. But it will ensure that you win.

No matter what others do, they can not control your attitudes unless you let them. In the great scheme of life we really own very little more than our attitudes. Why let a person who is filled with evil have the choice in your attitude? That would be silly.

Let the people, on either extreme; know that you reject their views as barbaric, naive, impractical, and silly. Don't allow them to have power in your mind and heart. Speak out against their cruel intentions. Ruthlessly, relentlessly, implacably pursue a courageous course of love, forgiveness and non-violence at any cost. It is your heart that is at stake. Love sees the reality of injustice and hatred, but will never join in. Love those who hate, but reject their childish ways. Don't allow childish people to govern your country (or at least your heart and mind!)


Love,
Joe Bedale