The "disengagement" as seen from Gaza

Good link
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4073.shtml

Trying to combat the overhwhelming pro-Israel perspective in mainstream media--trhat's why Indybay rightfuly falls into the category of 'alternative' rather than mainstream. You don't hear e.i. much on Fox, CNN, NBC, ect. ad nauseum.

Neither do you hear much Bozo the Clown. Some ideas are swept to the sidelines because that's where they deserve to be.

@%<

Why the name calling? "Bozo"????...Very childish.
Anyway, I agree, some ideas are swept aside because they deserve to be. Also, alot of ideas, information and alternatives are swept to the side because they are not consistent with the ruling folks in this country (and others)---and the main institutions that decide what is 'news' have internalized this warped sense of priorities that we have in the US about what is important--i.e. So what we have, in general, is a profit-driven, info-tainment right-wing news media, where anything that is more radical, or perceived as 'unpopular' will receive less (or none) in terms of attention/priority/newsworthiness.

You're not going to call me "Bozo" or respond?

I'm going to wait until you learn to read. Once you do, you'll discover -- among other things -- that I didn't call anyone "Bozo" in this thread. And once you master the art of reading -- that is, finding out what the author actually meant, rather than simply projecting whatever you want to onto the words and using that as an excuse to go shrieky-shrieky-shkrieky -- then you'll be amazed at how much more interesting the world is.

@%<

your quote--"that I didn't call anyone "Bozo" in this thread"
Your quote also, "Neither do you hear much Bozo the Clown"
Hmm, contradiction?
Let's try some more, your quote, "And once you master the art of reading" Feeling a bit inferior? That's quite often the motivation for condescension/put downs. I read fine, thanks.
another quote, "to go shrieky-shrieky-shkrieky "
What does that mean?
Anyway, back to the points I made that you failed to address: (my quote) "Anyway, I agree, some ideas are swept aside because they deserve to be. Also, alot of ideas, information and alternatives are swept to the side because they are not consistent with the ruling folks in this country (and others)---and the main institutions that decide what is 'news' have internalized this warped sense of priorities that we have in the US about what is important--i.e. So what we have, in general, is a profit-driven, info-tainment right-wing news media, where anything that is more radical, or perceived as 'unpopular' will receive less (or none) in terms of attention/priority/newsworthiness."
Care to respond.

<<<<<The Electronic Intifada is a purely Palestinian perspective. The name is a hint, get it?>>>>>


Jews are very heavy contributors to EI. In fact, one of the founders was Nigel Perry - an English Jew, noted photographer, living in Minnesota. There are a large amount of articles at EI written by Jews both within Israel and out.

Many of the so called pro-Palestine sites were started by Jews:

MECA, Women in Black (started by Lesbian Jews in Israel, now all over the world), International Solidarity Movement (Gilad, a Jew), Palestine Chronicle - Jews and Palestinians.
, etc, etc.

Guess what? There is such a thing as a Jew with a conscience, although judging by the bottom feeding here, it might seem incomprehensible.

For a mature response, if possible.

some horribly confused person: "your quote--"that I didn't call anyone "Bozo" in this thread" Your quote also, "Neither do you hear much Bozo the Clown" Hmm, contradiction? "

Well, this helps me understand your stance a little better -- you're just severely logically impaired.

Think hard. What's the difference between saying "Leonard Bernstein" and "You're a Leonard Bernstein"? I'm sure you can work it out if you put your mind to it.

When you get past that point, try to decide whether or not saying "Leonard Bernstein" and "I didn't say you're Leonard Bernstein" is a "contradiction" to be chortled over, or a simple fact.

@%<

We'll just move past your "Bozo" remark and to the rest of my previous post that you chose to ignore:
Let's try some more, your quote, "And once you master the art of reading" Feeling a bit inferior? That's quite often the motivation for condescension/put downs. I read fine, thanks.
another quote, "to go shrieky-shrieky-shkrieky "
What does that mean?
Anyway, back to the points I made that you failed to address: (my quote) "Anyway, I agree, some ideas are swept aside because they deserve to be. Also, alot of ideas, information and alternatives are swept to the side because they are not consistent with the ruling folks in this country (and others)---and the main institutions that decide what is 'news' have internalized this warped sense of priorities that we have in the US about what is important--i.e. So what we have, in general, is a profit-driven, info-tainment right-wing news media, where anything that is more radical, or perceived as 'unpopular' will receive less (or none) in terms of attention/priority/newsworthiness."
Care to respond.

"We'll just move past your "Bozo" remark"

Translation: "Damn, he's right, it's right there in black and white, but I'll be goddamned if I admit it."

And the rest of your cut-and-paste trollery doesn't impress me any more the second time than it did the first. Are you now going to dribble the same questions over and over? That same tactic left Toothless looking like a monomaniacal fool -- are you sure you want to follow in his footsteps?

@%<

****Are you now going to dribble the same questions over and over****
It would appear that, aside from condescension, put-downs and flame warring, that you can't really respond or engage in meaningful dialogue. Does it somehow make you feel better about yourself to connect with people this way?

Palestinians on the Right Side of History
NYT Op-Ed
BENNY MORRIS
August 24, 2005

THERE is, from the historian's perch, something fitting about the
Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. I am not speaking about the
fact that this appallingly overcrowded area has 1.3 million Arabs who
need every inch of its 140 square miles to even begin to imagine a
better life and who regard their former Jewish occupiers as nothing
more than robbers.

I mean instead that for the greater part of ancient history - that
past in which the Jewish people anchor their claim to Israel - the
Gaza Strip was not part of the Jewish state. The embattled settlers
may have screamed last week that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was
expelling Jews from part of Eretz Yisrael, "the land of Israel." And
the first Hebrew, the patriarch Abraham, may have understood God, at
least on paper (or papyrus), to have included this narrow strip of
territory in his promised domain.

But in reality, the Gaza Strip and the coastal towns to its north, for
most of the years between, say, 1250 B.C. and 135 A.D. - the era in
which the Jews lived in and often ruled the land of Israel - eluded
firm Israelite or Judean control and, indeed, Jewish habitation. It is
not even clear that the great Hebrew kings David and Solomon, under
whom the kingdom reached its vastest expanse, ever directly controlled
the Gaza area.

The Hebrew tribes that crossed the Jordan River and pushed into the
Holy Land in the 13th and 12th centuries B.C. settled and established
their rule along its hilly central spine, between Ishtamua (present-
day Samua), Hebron and Shechem (present-day Nablus). This stretch,
with Jerusalem at its center, comprises the area that the Bible and
many Israelis now refer to as Judea and Samaria, and the rest of the
world calls the West Bank. This is the historical heartland of the
Jewish people - and of course today it is largely populated by Arabs,
who claim it as their own and are demanding that Israel evacuate it.

By contrast, the coastal strip to the west, from Rafah north through
Gaza to Caesarea, was the land of the strangers, the Gentiles.
Paradoxically, Tel Aviv, that ultimate Israeli-Jewish city, serves as
the hub of this coastline today, a city of the plain par excellence.

Thus in a spiritual sense, history served up a terrible irony at the
start of the Zionist enterprise. Wishing to return to Shiloh and
Bethel, Jerusalem and Hebron, the Jews immigrating to Palestine found
its hilly core heavily populated by Arabs. So the early settlers put
down roots in the thinly populated coastal plain and interior lowlands
(the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys), where land was available and
relatively cheap.

Then, in the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, the Jews established
their state in those same lowlands, while Judea and Samaria were
occupied by the Jordanian Army, which resisted Israeli takeover. Thus
history was reversed: the reborn Jewish state sprang up precisely in
those areas that millenniums earlier had been the domain of the
Gentiles.

The Gaza Strip was the exception. It was the only part of the old
Gentile coastal plain that was saved for the Arabs, by the Egyptian
Army. It changed hands, of course, in 1967 (along with the West Bank);
but with the Israeli withdrawal, it will regain a long tradition of
evading Jewish control.

In antiquity, Gaza was part of Biblical Pleshet or Philistia - the
domain of the Philistines, a non-Semitic "sea people" hailing from the
Greek isles who probably invaded and settled along the coast in the
12th century B.C. (more or less simultaneous with the arrival in the
Holy Land of the Hebrews from the east).

From their towns of Gaza, Ashkelon and Jaffa, the Philistines
controlled the coastal plain from 1150 B.C. to 586 B.C., and
intermittently challenged Jewish rule over the inland hill country. It
was in these forays eastward that the Philistines lost their champion,
Goliath, to young David's pebble and, in turn, slew King Saul and his
son Jonathan on Mount Gilboa, displaying their heads on the walls of
Beit Shean, in the Jordan Valley.

Philistia was conquered (along with Judea) by the Babylonians in 586
B.C. and the Philistines were exiled and vanished from history. In the
second century A.D., after having quashed a Jewish revolt, the Roman
rulers renamed the land of Israel - in order to de-Judaize it -
Palestina (a derivative of Philistia). They thus gave the Arabs, who
were to arrive on the scene five centuries later, the name they were
to adopt. In this nominal sense, there is justice in the Palestinian
Arabs now gaining possession of ancient Philistia.

Of course, these historical details are of little interest to the
Islamic fundamentalists, who, by most accounts, enjoy majority support
in the Gaza Strip. For them, history begins with the conquests of
Muhammad and his caliphs in the seventh century. According to Koranic
law, all the land they conquered (including not only today's Palestine
but also Spain and Portugal) became inalienable Islamic territory. Or
as Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader, said recently, the fundamentalists
seek to control not just the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; as he put
it, "All of Palestine is our land."

Indeed, probably most Arabs would like to "de-Judaize" all of
Palestine, and many, no doubt, see the Gaza evacuation as a first
step. But that remains a distant dream. Gaza may be reverting
to "Gentile" rule, but whether the West Bank - in which lie the true
historical roots of the Jewish people - will do so also is another,
and far more painful, question.

Benny Morris, the author of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee
Problem Revisited," is a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University
in Beersheba, Israel.

anonymouse: "It would appear that, aside from condescension, put-downs and flame warring, that you can't really respond or engage in meaningful dialogue."

Sorry, you're mistaking unwillingness for inability.

Last I checked, for example, Toothless Worrier was weeping for the poor Nazi Ernst Zundel, and there's some other anonymouse out there who thinks it's the height of wit to call me "g-spot" -- as if the g-spot were a bad thing.

Those whom I take seriously know that I'm capable of long, detailed, empassioned discussions, including discussions of Israel policy. But Toothless Worrier? The rest of the anonymice? Real progressives don't defend antisemitism in any form. Fake progressives always find a way to wink it away.

@%<

Real progressives don't refer to antiSemites as progressive. There isnt so much a problem of antiSemitism among progressives as one of antiSemitic people pretending to be progressives and antiSemiic people who dont even pretend to be progressive (like Wendy) being referred to as progressive by people whose real agenda seems to be to demonize progressives. If you want to get the progressive community to recognize infilitration by antiSemites a first step would be to make it clear that your goal is to get rid of the small number of antiSemities (and not those with legitimate concerns about Israel and Palestinians) and not one of demonizing progressives to draw in more people to other conservative causes. While Gehrig does seem to be posting out of legitimate fears much of the Campus Watch crowd (and the people behind that movement) is acting on directive of Carl Rove to scare Jewish voters to the Republican Party; its in their interest to highlight and perhaps even manufacture antiSemitic incidents (hence the fake quotes attributes to Sheehan) to pull people in (or at least keep more people away from antiBush protests) and have no real interest in reducing antiSemitism.

Here's your quote, we'll try this again, "Some ideas are swept to the sidelines because that's where they deserve to be."
Maybe you can just elaborate on this. Who decides what ideas deserve to be. This sounds pretty fascist to me. While I would personally agree that there are some whacky ideas that are swept to the sideline, there are even more whacky ideas packaged and sold witht the complicity of a mainstream media that has failed miserably. Thus, the reason to turn to alternative media, for the issues, information and stories that may get 'swept' to the sidelines that are actually very important--but not neccessarily conducive to maitaining the sorry status quo and continuing to shape the majority's thoughts/attitudes in a way that allows it to continue.

"Real progressives don't refer to antiSemites as progressive. "

I completely agree.

"There isnt so much a problem of antiSemitism among progressives as one of antiSemitic people pretending to be progressives and antiSemitic people who dont even pretend to be progressive (like Wendy) being referred to as progressive by people whose real agenda seems to be to demonize progressives."

But this is something the progressive movement could avoid if it were clearer in its condemnation of antisemitism, not just in a general ethereal sense but in specific cases.

Toothless Worrier, for example, is busily posting Holocaust denial stuff in his rush to defend Ernst Zundel, and has also come to the defense of the antisemitic drivel Elizabeth Dilling, one of the most notorious American fascists of the 1930s. Why is mine the only voice calling him out on it?

"If you want to get the progressive community to recognize infilitration by antiSemites a first step would be to make it clear that your goal is to get rid of the small number of antiSemites."

You make an excellent point. I feel like I've done that frequently, but maybe I haven't done that frequently enough. If I thought Indymedia was chock full of goosesteppers, I wouldn't bother with it, just as I don't bother with overtly Nazi sites. Nor would I have taken the time to write this: http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/10810.

But there is a reflex I've seen kick in many times here, which is the assumption that, because I think the progressive movement has a legitimate problem on the antisemitism issue, that I therefore must be some right-wing Fox-News-Watching ditto-head. That makes my ACLU card kinda hard to explain.

@%<

"But this is something the progressive movement could avoid if it were clearer in its condemnation of antisemitism, not just in a general ethereal sense but in specific cases.... because I think the progressive movement has a legitimate problem on the antisemitism issue, that I therefore must be some right-wing Fox-News-Watching ditto-head. That makes my ACLU card kinda hard to explain."

The problem is that there is so much mud and dust throw around people are going to avoid condemning things when there is a risk of falling into a trap. Should "progressives" condemn Cindy Sheehan for antiSemitic remarks? Maybe if she had actually said the things HItchens claim she said (although even then the quote itself wasnt openly antiSemitic).
To put the requirement that progressives have a special need to speak out against crazies posting conspiracy theories about Israel assumes that such people are always part of the progressive movement. To ask "progressives" to speak out against antiSemitism. SOmeone like Cindy Sheehan is better of ignoring the fake chrages and just deny the quotes rather then get trapped into saying something against antiSemitism since there certain types of public condemnations can sould like admissions of guilt and thats part of the reason antiSemitism is starting to be used as a weapon in this way.

I do think that there is still widesperad antiSemitic conspiracy beliefs across the board in the US, mainly among religious Christians. And sometimes some of these people may take progressive stands on various issues or try to get involved with progressive groups working around Palestinian causes. In some cases this is dealt with head on; two years ago I saw one of the heads of Students For Justice In Palestine attack a man with a Nazi flag yelling about Israel and tear up his sign with members of the Israeli Action Comittee on campus thanking him afterwords even though normally the two groups would be at each others throats. The harder thing to deal with is subtle antiSemitism but I think part of what makes it hard to deal with is that its usually brought up as if its a porgressive problem or somehow tied to opposition towards Israel rather than it being aknowledged that its a problem across the board that can also come up among progressives.

If you want to know why radical left wing groups have a hard time dealing with antiSemitism see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism
I dont mean the charges in it but the idea being spread by right-wingers that there is something fundamentally different about left-wing antiSemitism.
Imagine if one changed Judiasm in that article to Shia Islam and Israel to Iran. Would it be better for activists focusing on rights in Iran to constantly respond to charges of Islamaphobia (especially when many of the activists are Muslims) or ignore the charge since by responding to the specific tone of the charge would give it a sense of legitimacy (and make legitimate criticism of Iran harder since every chrage would have to be followed by an apology for sounding antiIslamic). There are many people who hate Iran because they hate Muslisms and there are many people who hate Israel becauset rhey hate Jews. If you have any debate online about Iran you are also bound to find violent hatred of Muslims mixed into the condemnation of the government just as you do with respect to Israel.

To talk about mysogyny amongMmuslims, antiSemitism among Arabs, etc.. is equally as counterproductive for the exact same reason yet somehow peopel fail to see that the way one frames what one is attacking can turn a legitimate concern into something that is itself racist. Israel may have a problem with child abuse (probably no more or less than anywhere else) but if you saw a site run outside of Israel by nonJews focused solely on Jewish child abuse in Israel you wouldnt respond by apologizing for the actual abuse since the framing of the problem as being Jeiwsh or even Israeli when there is obviously nothing specific to Judaism or Israel that relates to the global problem. In the case of something like homophbia you may dind a link between religion and homophobia but as a nonMuslim to focus specifically on Islam and homopobia could even make the problem worse since to portray Islam (rather than an interpretation of Islam) as the problem puts forward the idea of gay rights activists as an enemny in the Islamic community and likely adds to homophobia. You can actually seee much criticism of Israel in this light; people who overwise may regard settlers as crazy can find themselves defending them from antiSemitic attacks even when its obvious that the while the attacks may be antiSemitic the settlers still are a problem. France seems to have gotten better over the past year but you could likewise see a growing antiSemitism in France almost directly resulting from Sharon's statement that Jews should leave France since it was unfixably antiSemitic. AntiSemitism in France was and is a problem but to portray it as being a problem among the French because they are French results in a backlash.

AntiSemitism needs to be confronted even when it appears among poeple who call themselves progressives but it should never be confronted as if its a problem of antiSemitism among progressives since to frame it that way guarantees that progresives will either ignore you or act defensively (especially if they have never seen any antiSemitism among progressives they know).

I personally think the conspiracy theory crowd is prone to antiSemitism but I dont think that crowd is progressive or even left-wing. RIght now some of those people are being attacked as being left-wing antiSemities but talk of black UN helicopters, UFOs and secret societies at Yale or Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove isnt left or right. Its also not the type of thing that is easilly dealt with by confrontation. To silence or scold people who believe that most of the world is out to get them just plays into the paranoia. One thing that should be pointed out about all the conspiracy theories is how closely tied they are to Christian beliefs about Satan and Armegeddon. To believe in the X files conspiracy theory about a small group of men controlling the world with alien ties is obvioulsy not antiSemitic but to be open to such views makes it easy to fall into seeing sucha group as Jews, Masons, Mobsters, or anything else.

Anti-semitism, like any other form of racism, is best assessed by those on the receiving end. This site drew me in because of the shocking amount of open anti-semitsm here.

Unless those who claim to assess are 1. Using antisemitism as a poltical weapon to discourage legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and/or zionism, or, 2. They have a 'victim' mentality that inaccurately colors their perception of the aforementioned criticisms, causing a knee-jerk response of "antisemitism".

Re: "To put the requirement that progressives have a special need to speak out against crazies posting conspiracy theories about Israel assumes that such people are always part of the progressive movement."

No, I think think that's true. Every political viewpoint has a moral obligation to stand out against the crazies in its midsts. And I take that obligation seriously; you've seen me call out racist posts from self-described Zionists here. I don't enjoy it, by any means, but I do it.

The progressive movement is not magically immune from the same responsibility when it comes to antisemitism. Yes, there are those who scream "antisemitism" without justification, and yes, they do make it more difficult to sort through the antisemitism issue. But their existence doesn't unilaterally relieve progressives from the duty of policing their own ranks, because the source of that duty isn't politics but fundamental principles of morality, which would exist with or without the "everything is antisemitism" crowd.

Re: "the idea being spread by right-wingers that there is something fundamentally different about left-wing antiSemitism"

Well, again, this isn't just the right speaking. If you have any knowledge at all of the history of antisemitic rhetoric, you're constantly appalled by how the most extreme anti-Zionists relish drinking from that same poisoned well. If this sounds like a right-wing message, it's only because its one of many places in America where the left voice is drowned out by the right wing noise machine.

The problem with the name "the new antisemitism" is that it isn't really new; too often, it's the same old stuff about Great International Political Conspiracies To Subjugate The Gentiles, except with the word "Jew" scratched off and the word "Zionist" stuck in its place. It's only that last step that makes it "new," because it leads to an alternate dynamic.

That is, there are those who start out as antisemites and because of it become anti-Israel, but now there are also those who start out as anti-Israel and, by their failure to keep their moral compass, fall into the antisemitic pit. To come back to my favorite example, take nessie's gerrymandered definition of "racism," something he has doctored so that he can condemn nearly every single American Jew as a "racist." I don't think he started out _intending_ to be an antisemite, but that's sure where he ended up, and the new-Antisemitism path that took him there doesn't make him any less of an antisemite than if he'd started there to begin with.

And it's not the principled criticism of Israel which causes this, but the temptation to slide into the rhetoric of demonization -- the handy but grotesquely oversimplified stance that Israel is simply Darth Vader's evil Empire, "motivelessly malignant," incurable, mad, rabid, and fit only to be destroyed. It's quite a treat to be called "rabid" by someone whose own mouth is flecked with foam.

"You can actually see much criticism of Israel in this light; people who otherwise may regard settlers as crazy can find themselves defending them from antiSemitic attacks even when its obvious that, the while the attacks may be antiSemitic, the settlers still are a problem."

This is true and insightful.

"AntiSemitism needs to be confronted even when it appears among poeple who call themselves progressives but it should never be confronted as if its a problem of antiSemitism among progressives since to frame it that way guarantees that progressives will either ignore you or act defensively (especially if they have never seen any antiSemitism among progressives they know)."

Maybe I haven't been clear. When I say "the problem of antisemitism among progressives," I mean two things in particular. One's emblemized by nessie, as discussed above. The other is the tendency by too many progressives to regard the antisemitism issue as, a priori, a red herring, a cynical card being cynically played by duplicitous Zi-i-ionists, something to be swept under the table as quickly as possible. And I realized that this was a problem the hard way, when -- after I'd pointed out maybe the dozenth example of Holocaust denial urls in alleged "progressives" posts on SF-IMC, the editors there, rather than accept that there was indeed a problem, chose instead to announce his belief that I had planted them just so I could point them out, by anyone's definition a major what-the-fuck moment.

@%<

"The fact that you treat him seriously or respond to him as if he is representative of anything speaks to a slight sense of paranoia."

You're not the only one telling me that the nessie of '05 is only a shadow of his former self. But old habits die hard.

@%<

"There may be a few people who focus on Israel and then become borderline antiSemitic because of the tendency for things to polarize but I've never meet any (JA, Wendy, Nessie, Truth Warrior... aqll started out with theoir crazy views and are now focusing them in on Israel)."

This may be true -- that is, my tendency is to give people the benefit of the doubt until they establish a pattern of antisemitic rhetoric, and the folks you list may have been batshit all along, even when I was still giving them the benefit of the doubt.

@%<

" that is, my tendency is to give people the benefit of the doubt"

I dont think they are really more antiSemitic than they appear and are just pretending online to get more followers but the present level of antiSemitism in the US among the general Christian population left/right and center is subtle. There is Christian antiSemitism that focuses on the lack of forgiveness in Judaism as compared to Christianity. You have stereotypes about Jewish lawyers. You have books like the Bell Curve that put forward model minority sort of antiSemitism against Jews charging Jews with being slightly smarter than nonJews (and thus more sneaky). You have stereotypes of Jeiwsh culture as stingy. You also have freemason/zionist conspitracies that draw heavilly on historic antiSemitism but rarely focus on actual Jews (ie its a belief that small group of Jews control thing or pull strings in an organized fashion ratehr than a belief that most Jews are part or even associated with such a group). Wendy reminds me of the more common antiSemitism where all Jews are seen as an other and only Jews who denounce their Jewish identity are trusted. Nessie is more just a conspiracy buff who doesnt seem to hold the other views and has conspiracy theories about Zionists that are more similar to fears of the Illuminati. He may be quick to condemn most Jews for support of Israel but his definition of ZIonist seems two-tiered; there is a secret evil X-Files like group controlling things and then there are people who support them for racict reasons (or because they dont know better). This isnt really the traditional antiJewish conspiracy theories of Ford and Churchill since while he refers to both the secret controllers and the stupid masses as Zionists, the older antiSemitic conspiracy was based on a belief in a much stronger tie (or the neoNazi ZOG belief that also believes in a much stronger tie).

Most people who use Zionist in a negative sense dont mean what Nesie means and just mean "supporters of Israel" as defined as being those opposed to "supporters of Palestinians". Thus many denouncing Zionism are just engaging in a typical polarized political argument with little tie to antiSemitism or conspiracy. Although perhaps if you want to see the tie betwen Zionism and Judaism as making some of the rhetoric antiSemitic it would be comparible to the use of Jap or Kraut during WWII (both racist terms applied to the people rather than the government but something a little different from nonwartime bigotry since anger at a government's actions boils over into hot language with the anger at the government being the root cause).

"Anti-semitism, like any other form of racism, is best assessed by those on the receiving end."

A preposterous statement. A less biased party is difficult to imagine. This is the favorite escape mechanism of self-styled "victims" who simply don't want to face their own character problems. And then there are always the political agendas served by announcing yourself to be "downtrodden," aren't there...

???

"This site drew me in because of the shocking amount of open anti-semitsm here."

This is called a "persecution complex." Again, it's a very convenient perception given certain motives.

A MORE biased party is difficult to imagine.

That was a slight variation on name calling. So what?

The person who is alledging to be persecuted is a heavily biased source.

Thats ridulous. Think about it Racists don't perceive their nonsense to be racist, but their victims do.

Does everyone fall into the category of racist/victim? Or are there 3rd parties who are non-racists who may be nuetral judges?
Think about it.