Stop funding Israeli war crimes: Divest NOW! (by Latuff)

Dear Sir,

I was very saddened to read your message; it is very unfortunate that such ignorance exists in the US of the 21st century.
Israel is no evil empire; its very existent is threatened on a daily basis by the Arab states and the 1.7 billion Muslims it is surrounded by.
These countries and individuals have never accepted the existence of a Jewish Israeli state in the region, in their ignorance and propaganda they do not recognize the right of any non-Arab or Muslim to live in this area. In their ignorance they do not recognize the facts of the past non-interruptible Jewish presence in this area. For them Israel never existed in this area and all archeological ruins that proves otherwise are no more that a Jewish propaganda that is and was deliberately and maliciously spread by the Zionist and Jewish lobby that controls the media. Arab, as well as left wing European and American movements r hatred towards Israel is being marketed to the free world every day as a form of Humanistic Justice liberal movement, where in fact it is no more than modern Nazism and Racism.

Nazism and Racism towards Jews, unfortunately, are not going to die or disappear, they are here to stay, 2000 years of hatred were, obviously, not enough. But still the opinions represented by you and your kind are soon to be obsolete, your fellow Muslims does the ambassadors diplomatic work for the state of Israel –
Do you know what is the most popular name in the Muslim world this year?
It was Osama…and from what other name did Osama take the lead? Saddam…

And I rest my case,

Have a good day, Sir.

>"In their ignorance they do not recognize the facts of the past non-interruptible Jewish presence in this area. For them Israel never existed in this area and all archeological ruins that proves otherwise are no more that a Jewish propaganda that is and was deliberately and maliciously spread by the Zionist and Jewish lobby that controls the media."

-------------------------------------------------

Excerpt from an article by Paul de Rooij:
For decades, Israelis have been attempting to erase the vestiges of the 400+ Palestinian villages and towns destroyed during the 1948 war. The towns have been bulldozed and the ruins have been built over. Where one finds a pine forest in Israel proper one will find the ruins of a Palestinian village that the Israelis are trying to hide. In recent months, many of these ruined villages have been "developed" so that Palestinians won't be able to claim them in an eventual peace agreement, but part of the process is to rid the country of Palestinian history and vestiges. Erasing the ruined villages is not only an attempt to rid any Palestinian claim to the land, but also another attempt to demolish their identity. The most potent symbol for Palestinians is the "key"--the claim to the homes that the Israelis stole. The key is also the principal symbol excised out of all cartoons and art by the Israeli censor. Further demolition of the ruins has important implications for all.

Archeology has been a battleground with a long history. Israelis have always claimed monopoly in archeology, and they have prohibited Palestinians from studying this field in Israeli universities. Israeli archeologists will usually concentrate on the old layers in the archeological excavations, to the exclusion of the more recent ones dealing with Palestinian history -- these are usually destroyed. A few years ago, Dr. Albert Glock, an American archeologist head of the Palestinian Institute of Archeology at Bir Zeit University, was excavating the recent layers near Ramallah when he was mysteriously assassinated. Palestinians suspect that the Israelis assassinated him because digging up the recent history counters the Israeli attempts to bury the Palestinian history.

perhaps the man unearthed a mass grave site...

“Palestinians suspect that the Israelis assassinated him because digging up the recent history counters the Israeli attempts to bury the Palestinian history.”

Palestinians also suspect that it is Israel who is responsible for the 9.11 atrocities; actually it is a common belief of most Muslims worldwide (maybe Muslims in NY are different)…
I do not wish to argue with Palestinian and for that matter anyone else’s suspicions.

“Israelis have always claimed monopoly in archeology, and they have prohibited Palestinians from studying this field in Israeli universities.”

It is obvious that your knowledge of Israel is limited to what you’ve read and might have seen on TV. Arab students in Israel study in all faculties all subjects, usually it easier for Arab students to enroll since they are protected by the minority law that is taking care of a certain number of students from each sector in the general population in each faculty, besides Arab students also apply to all regular posts in the University as any other student.
This necessarily means that the percentage of Arab students in the Israeli Universities is generally high. This does not include any of the universities in the occupied territories that are strictly Palestinian.

Regarding the general assumption in your response, that someone is trying to hide or to distort the history of the land by preventing excavations of Palestinian villages, you can relax, the history of the past 2 – 3 centuries of this land formerly (and mistakenly) known as Palestine, is well documented and even photographs of the land and its inhabitants exist. Nobody is trying to bury the Palestinian History of the land, which is well documented. It is a common fact that during its war of independence Israel destroyed many of these Arab villages, it is also well known and documented that most of the Palestinians flee Israel because two main reasons:
1. The call from the Arab leaders to their Arab brothers resident in Palestine (for back than these residents were not Palestinians and therefore they were not considered to be any different that any other Arab) to leave as fast as they can before the “wining forces of the prophet will come to liberate the land and kill all of its infidel inhabitants…
2. At a later stage the fear of the advancing Israeli forces, and here again the fear grew beyond any reasonable proportion because of the amazing quality of the Muslim world to see the world with glasses that portray a non existing reality (see above other common beliefs in the Muslim world.

Regarding the “mass grave site” cheap remark, it just suits the regular visitors of this site to have again another Anti-Semitic remark such as this.

Divesture should be applied to the entire region. We should divest from the totalitarian governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and the rest of the Arab world. These governments oppress the Arab people and disgrace the religion of Islam. They have created a pathetic culture of self-negation and non-accountability-- which radiates in their totalitarian media, attempts at intellectual discourse and their economy. Instead of fixing their problems (a course chosen by rational people), they instead take the predictable course of blaming the US and Israel-- making them look like political and intellectual retards to the majority of Americans. Yes, its America's fault that the entire Arab world has a combined GDP less than Spain's (take away oil and the GDP is less than Finland!). Besides the fact the nations like Saudi Arabia routinely execute homosexuals, democratic advocates and anyone else that doesn't conform to their "enlightened monarchy" , these nations daily call for the "Death of America". Just so the extreme liberals on this group understand, calling for someone's death is a bad thing. What's worse is that the governments of the region offer their implied support for these calls. Think about it. Those who don't agree with Arab totalitarians are either in jail or dead. Since the mullahs who spread hate and breed terrorists are neither dead nor in jail-- a reasonable person would assume that they enjoy the support of their government.

It therefore makes sense that the US should disengage with totalitarians in the region. First, because they have a problem with our existence (having formulated the opinion that we are the Great Satan and the reason they are weak, pathetic, ignorant, etc)-- it is not reasonable to support these regimes. Second, these regimes offer an antipode of American values (freedom, democracy, self-determination) -- making continued interaction increasingly difficult. Finally, we are doing the people of the Arab world an injustice by allowing them to survive on natural rather than human resources. Nations that rely on natural resources alone are not compelled to develop the knowledge and skills of their people. Under a totalitarian regime (pick any Arab nation), knowledge and skills are viewed as a threat-- since they offer economic and political independence. By cutting ties to Arab totalitarians, we will leave the region free to become another Somalia or Afghanistan (examples of nations with few natural resources that refuse to invest in their own people).

Unfortunately, the US is unlikely to disengage because the left is devoid of the vision to create a national energy policy to eliminate dependence on totalitarian oil. For the right, it is not in their best interests (in the short run) to eliminate totalitarian oil. For this reason, we are going to go to war and are forced to liberate those who are too weak to free themselves. Iraq becomes a tool to modify the behavior of other totalitarians in the region as well as an economic stick to whack over the heads of our "Saudi" friends.

Thus, the question for America is what should be done with nations that hate us (hatred of free societies is required of totalitarian citizenry), want to destroy us (if they could do so without developing their own people-- which is unlikely) and that take no accountability for their own actions. Off hand there are 3 possible courses of action: (1) Isolation- let Saudi Arabia sell its oil to the consumers of Syria and Yemen, (2) Liberation - create a free society with a representative government or (3) Annihilation.

Dialogue is not a possible solution since its difficult to have dialogue with nations that are opposed to our institutions and freedoms, along with our right to exist. Also, since the majority of Westerners would reject the system of government, lack of freedom and overall backwardness of Arab societies (i.e., were not going to think that living under totalitarianism is a good idea)-- ideological compromise is impossible.

"Israel can do no wrong."

Grow up.

Attacking Jews using the expression "Chosen One" shows you to be a Nazi. Go back to Stormfront.

Its not about Israel. Its about the question of totalitarian culture in the Arab world. This culture wasn't created by Israel...Israel is but a justification to continue this culture (among others such as the Arab masses aren't "sophisticated enough for democracy"). What is upsetting, is that Arab intellectuals and members of the far left are the very one's who condemn the Arab populations to oppression and non-development by endorsing non-accountability (blame Israel, US, the West, etc). These voices don't speak up for those who want to formulate their own views, opinion, life strategies or lifestyle choices within the Arab world. They project the idea that so long as its fellow Arabs who negate the future and potential of Arabs-- there is not a problem. This projection does not help generate genuine sympathy anywhere. The best it can do is attract the sentiment of those who already dislike America and its allies.

In my opinion, which I ask you not to murder me for (this is for Islamic sychophants from the region), blaming the political, social and economic retardation of the Arab world on Israel is demonstrative of undeveloped thinking and problem-solving skills. It is these unrefined skills which have placed the Arab world in a position of disgrace and helplessness-- serving only the interests of totalitarians.

I did not say that Israel can do no wrong. I do, however, feel that if given the same choices-- it would be difficult for other nations to respond differently. When someone challenges your existence, there is a presupposition of difficult choices. In America, if we were faced with suicide bombers in our malls, public gathering places and the like on a daily basis, supported by the Arab world-- the Arab world might awake to the concept of "non-existence". The fact that the Arab world still exists says volumes about the degree of tolerance afforded by Israel-- given its arsenal of nuclear weapons. Should Israel work to solve this problem without annihilating the Palestinians or Arabs? Yes, it should do more. Unfortunately, what it can do is directly related to the tactics and strategy utilized by the Arab world. A culture that teaches its children to negate themselves in order to make grotesque political/religious gestures-- rather than engage in constructive debate and problem-solving -- limits the choices of Israel (or any nation). Sharon did not kill the Israeli left (the group most likely to make peace with the Palestinians and Arab world). The Arab world and Palestinians killed the political left in Israel-- along with their own children and the future of their children. Indeed, the Arab world via terrorism has made major strides in destroying the left in the US as well.

... please defend your statements that essentially say "arab culture" is retarded, undeveloped, dangerous, and cannot take care of itself.

secondly, defend the superiority of western culture, to the point where you are justified in saying that "arab culture", whatever that vague term means, is worthy of invasion, "redevelopment", "straightening out", and all the other nice phrases for essentially saying one culture can and should and will draw up the fate of another culture.

if i am wrong in sensing that you view western culture to be superior, and therefore justified in all it's actions, i apologize.

lastly, i want to make this point. this is a point i have made again, and again, and again in other discussions.

FAILURE = FAILURE.

suicide bombings of israeli citizens have not, nor will they, bring freedom to palestine = counter-productive = more and more occupation = failure.

the occupation of palestine by israel has not, nor will it, bring peace and security to israel = counter-productive = more and more suicide bombings = failure.

FAILURE = FAILURE = FAILURE = FAILURE = FAILURE =

round and round it goes...

DOES ISRAEL WANT PEACE AND SECURITY FOR IT'S CITIZENS?

DOES PALESTINE WANT PEACE AND FREEDOM FOR IT'S CITIZENS?

SO WHAT'S STOPPING THEM?

could it be the fear that both sides will have to make some of the Hardest Decisions Ever Made by a people and nation...

... and meanwhile, because the leaders on each side are so unable to make the decisions that leaders are supposed to make, and so entangled in hatred, innocent people on either side will continue to die...

DEAD ISRAELIS = DEAD PALESTINIANS

DEAD PALESTINIANS = DEAD ISRAELIS

when will it stop...

I said that the Arab world suffered from "political, social and economic retardation". The culture on the other hand is not "retarded", although it has numerous challenges due to the impact of social, economic and political retardation.

Politically, it denies individuals the most basic rights-- such as free speech, right to assembly, religious freedom, right to form associations, right to a fair trail and other activities that might challenge totalitarian power. This path is neither unique, legitimate (according to International law) or particularly helpful to the Arab people in the Industrial or Information Age. This path of government was a remnant of the Agricultural era.

The economic system of the Middle East is a division of its political machine. The wealth and resources of Arab nations get filtered through the corrupt bureaucracies, insatiatable monarchs and dictators, tribal and religious strongmen -- and, of course, the skilled labor that has to be injected into the workforce. It not only strives for inefficiency and starves innovation-- it actively opposes the creation of a middle class (i.e., professionals, "knowledge workers"). Read the UN Report on the Middle East for more on this tragedy.

Socially, the Arab world has evolved an extreme tendency towards self-negation. It has abandoned any serious effort to educate its populace in productive or semi-productive fields of knowledge. Critical thinking skills are usually ignored in the cirriculum-- in favor of anti-Western, anti-Semetic propaganda. After all, if you're going to grow up in a totalitarian society, its important to know why democracies are bad, full of bad people and under the control of Satan. Its always a good thing when your out of work and unable to provide for your family to have someone to blame. Yep, there's Americans or Jews somewhere who are keeping Arabs from learning skills that would make them competitive in their local and the global economy. No doubt, America is the reason why the Arab world cannot muster up enough problem-solving skills to find alternatives to suicide bombings. The social fabric of any nation that lacks free speech, free thought and self-determination is retarded...at least within the context of the Information Age.

As for Arab culture, it is within Arab culture to excel in all areas of human endeavor. The culture has shown itself sufficient in the development of the first civilizations and its role in acting as a contributor and protector of human knowledge. It has known times where it has dominated or greatly influenced the arts. It has known times where it had reached the height of a superpower on the world stage. Those times haven't been around for over 500 years and there's no point on the horizon where you can see them coming back. Thus, Arab culture has reached that fork in the road again-- where one decides on re-living the past or adapting to a new environment. In the past, Arab culture would have chosen not only to adapt but to master the new environment. I fear they will take the wrong path and are heading toward the wrong path today.

I will not say that the culture of the West is superior to any culture. That's a highly subjective issue. Personally, I prefer Western culture, ideals and values but I'm willing to borrow things that work from anywhere. I just haven't found alot of anything that works for me in the Arab world these days. That's just me. If it weren't for that whole totalitarian thing...

"Arab culture" isn't what's worthy of "redevelopment", "straightening out", and all the other nice phrases for essentially saying one culture can and should and will draw up the fate of another culture...These things you mention are forced upon a culture that supports the destruction of our culture. We would've never exerted as much effort as we have so far, were it not for the mutated child of totalitarianism-- terrorism. Terrorism exposes the West to the political, social and economic retardation of the Arab world in its purest form. It is self-negation and non-accountability. We don't have any problems with people that are backward, ruled by totalitarians and that don't try to kill us. Live and let live is a fairly reasonable concept to me. When one of the participants in the "live and let live" arrangement decides that me living is a bad idea...obligations no longer exist under the previous agreement. Being redeveloped by a society that you have sought to destroy isn't the worst thing that could happen. If we sought to behave like the Roman Empire or Monguls, Septemper 11th or 12th would have been the nuclear annihilation of the Arab world-- or at least a country or two. Sure, we're evolving but the whole part of not wanting to be killed by someone that hate's you inspires basic reactions. "Straightening out" the person who wants to kill us isn't our first reaction. But to answer your question, there are times that "one culture can and should and will draw up the fate of another". Yes, Germany and Japan during WWII give an excellent example of when this is appropriate. Totalitarianism is a great societal disease that must be re-fought every so often.

Just SHARE the land as equals. DUH! You know, like we do here in the US. And don't give me that bull that we don't. We DO. I LOVE AMERICA! I just hate our current leaders and think we ought to have publicly funded poltical campaigns only and we need to outlaw and delegitimize all racism and that includes ZIONISM.

How about this : stop the muslims from trying to exterminate the jews from the mid east. STOP funding genocide. If anyone had half a brain here, you'd realize that the real agenda is muslims against jews everywhere,(they hate christians, atheists, hindu's Buddhists as well). Maybe, just maybe, one day you will realize that the jews, not the muslims, are indigenous to those lands.

The Israeli delegation is leveraging $12bn aid in Washington DC right now .

More weapons for brutality against Palestinians, drive them to suicide .

Ask your congressman why US tax payer not get to hear and vote on it?

"stop the muslims from trying to exterminate the jews"

The Israelis are the ones doing the exterminating (they kill 5 Palestinians for every Israeli killed), and they have locked a whole population of Palestinians in open air concentration camps. They are systematically stealing Palestinian land, obsfucating Palestinian history, destroying Palestinian records, and terrorizing Palestinian civilians.

(They are terrorizing Palestinian civilians with American weapons, bought and paid for with American tax dollars (I heard the Israelis are asking for $14 Billion in welfare this year alone. If the American people ever figure out how thoroughly they have been duped by the Israeli lobby, there will be a huge backlash.)

Israeli collective punishment afflicts all Palestinians, spreading the hatred towards the Israelis.

One thing to remember in your anti-Muslim hysteria is that the Europeans were guilty of the Holocaust, not the Palestinians.

I say, lets go back to the 1947 partition plan. We should treat Israel like we treated the Serbians. The UN should send in peace keeping troops to keep the Israeli soldiers from commiting any more human rights atrocities.

And on the other issues you mention about Arab / Muslim hostility towards all things Western, can you really blame them after we spent the last century undermining their democratic institutions just so that we can cut favorable oil deals with dictators?

Zionism is racism.

In Favor Of Israel

December 15, 2002 Pilar Rahola

When Hermann Broch, in the bloody madness of the Hitler era, launched this terrible assertion: "The indifference of Europe is the worst of the crimes", he was building something else than just a historical statement. In fact, he was trying to throw a dart to the core of the European conscience, obliging it to look in the mirror in order to meet itself. The result of this introspective look, if it had been taken place, would have had the same effect as the picture of Dorian Gray: monstrosity was not only far away from the European conscience, but it was born in itself. Europe was indifferent on the surface because it felt guilty within, in that inner abyss where for centuries it had looked after and fed the egg of the snake. Judeophobia was not a historical contingency limited in time and space, but a background culture that could explain the entire history of Europe. Somehow, Europe was founded by the hate of the Jews: they were its most remarkable co-founder. That is why Broch was wrong when he launched this desperate cry: Europe was not indifferent, Europe was the problem. Precisely for that same reason it never did a truly introspection, for historically it had managed to minimize its own guilt. Hitler? Hitler was just the last link of a growing destructive process of the Jewish soul that built the European soul; a destructive process that, in turn, was necessarily a self-destructive process. As Benjamin Netanyahu said, seriously affected, during one of his last official visits to the USA representing Israel, "Europeans wanted to exterminate us once in the past". That is to say, it was Europe that intended to exterminate the Jewish - and in fact it succeeded in exterminating many layers of their hard skin - and it is Europe again which, somehow, pleads for its extermination.
Is this true? Unfortunately I am convinced of it, and it is this belief that makes me write these lines. The conviction of taking part of a European entity that has committed the worst crime against humankind, the industrialized extermination of an entire culture, and despite of it, it has never gotten vaccinated to fight its hate. Europe had gotten rid of the Jewish, but it has not gotten rid of its Judeophobia.

This explains its uncritical Pro-Palestinian hysteria, its ferociously anti-Jewish left, its macabre trivialization of the Shoah - that "death of the human soul" that Lanzmann has turned into a close combat against oneself -, and its pseudo-intellectuals so fond of liberty that they have periodically been fond of all the dictators throughout history: Mao-Tse-Tung, Stalin, Pol Pot, and now Arafat. This explains the new ideological construction of anti-Semitism, adapted as anti-Zionism - and which Bernard Henry Levi considers as the most purified modern version of racism, although its origin had been a classic within the Soviet way of thinking...-, and it also explains the fascination that gets to inflict, among certain European intellectuals, any form of fascism that includes anti-Americanism as one of its totalitarian phobias. Saramago1 would be the best example of what August Bebel typified in 1884 as "the socialism of fools". For one person can be a wonderful writer and still think as an idiot...

Europe is Kafka. And Heine (considered as too Jewish in Europe and too "European" among Jews), and Freud, and Marx, and even Einstein. Nevertheless, as Kafka himself, Europe not only ignores its identity, but it also denies and destroys it, so exiled from itself that has made self-hate a type of reaffirmation. Europe's relationship with the Jewish, natural and weird at the same time, has always been the chronicle of a planned hara-kiri, up to the point of reaching a historical nonsense: Europe cannot be explained without the Jewish, and, at the same time, it has always been explained against the Jews; that is, against itself. Its collective conscience is formed via the different ways that Judeophobia invents, and there it is the origin of it. Just as its pathological anti-Americanism, so disloyal to the thousands of American men who lost their lives trying to rescue it from its deepest miseries, its anti-Semitism is pathological as well. Finally, after over five thousand years of attempts, it has succeeded in destroying its Jewish soul. By doing so, it has degraded so much that, somehow, has died. For this reason, the remains of Europe after the Holocaust are so similar to the esperpentos of Valle-Inclán2: the splendid epic hero is reflected in the concave mirror. Distorted. Stupefied. Lacking all kind of greatness.

I write in favor of Israel because, first of all, I am European and cannot forget the direct responsibility of Europe in everything that affects the Jewish society. Europe is responsible for the creation of the State of Israel. Europe creates the conscience, the need of state as the last hope for survival. Europe writes "Der Jüdenstaat" in 1896 through Theodor Herzl; In 1906 Europe sends Yafo, a young man from the Russian Poland, legendary David Grin, later named Ben Gurion in Hebrew. As sons of the Progrom, the regular dispersion and the destruction of its people, Europe sends thousands of young men to that "land without people to provide it with people without land". Young men who at the beginning wanted to be French, German, Polish, Russian, Hispanic, but who were obliged to be only Jews; Europe created the Jewish nation, making their people the only people in the world intended for total extermination; Europe builds the Ausschwitz terminus; Europe turns the creation of Israel into the very last solution... Can Europe provide itself with an ethical role in the conflict of the Middle East without bearing in mind its radical, monstrous, huge historical immorality? Perhaps that is the key to understanding the attitude of its official way of thinking: with its Manichaeanism and its uncritical fondness for the Palestinian victims, Europe redeems its guilt, it denies it and makes it vanish. It is not about being indifferent, as Broch denounced. Now it is about being the accuser, a nice way to stop being guilty ...

The trivialization of the Shoah is part of this same process of extermination. And regarding this subject we must be very clear: the perverse use of the memory of the Holocaust as a point of view in the conflict of the Middle East is a radical degradation of morality, and, undoubtedly, it is the spearhead of a deeply reactionary way of thinking. The irony that this way of thinking succeeds, especially among liberal intellectuals, lefty leaders and human rights organizations, is not surprising. After all, this irony historically defines a "so truthful" left that has sometimes been the executor arm of the most reactionary postulates. Since these movements are well settled on what Glucksmann calls "the black holes" of our collective memory - Vichy, the war of Argelia, the Soviet Gulag, the prosecutions against the Jews - they rewrite history as to tend to deny it. And only from this denial, from an overwhelming denial of the European conscience, the Holocaust can be used as a throwing weapon against Israel. This has got nothing to do with belonging to the Hasbara, or with being fond of the principles of information beyond propaganda, or with wishing to be reporters of the truth and not of the hate. It has got to do, above all, with respecting the victims of the industrialized crime. For someone must tell all the Saramagos in the world that trivializing the victims of the Shoah is like killing them again. As somebody said once, historical rigor is not only a scientist requirement; in the face of the holocaust it is a moral requirement.

By the way, and with the permission of Joan Culla, who used this reasoning in one of his articles: if the 52 Palestinian victims of Jenin (counted by a not suspecting NGO as is Human Rights Wath), plus the over 23 Israeli victims - or are they not important? - are comparable to the Holocaust, what can the nearly half a million people killed during the bloody Islamic process of Sudan, or the 20,000 victims of the revolts in the city of Hama in Syria by Hafed the Assad; or the 100,000 victims whose macabre responsible is the Argelian Islamic terrorism be compared to? And, would it not be compared to the regular destruction of Christian Lebanese settlements at the hands of Palestinian factions? Would it not be compared to the slaughter of Palestinians that the good Hussein of Jordania carried out in his particular black September?

However, all this seems unimportant for a left that, bearing in mind data, does not get indignant with the Muslim victims, with its legendary Third-World aureole so appreciated by these reactionary liberals, but only with those Muslim victims hit by Israeli bullets, in the middle of a conflict that in fact is a war. That is to say, the same left who is unable to remember that the communists were the main responsible for the death of communists throughout history, does not show any interest in knowing that Palestinians have killed more Palestinians than the Arabs themselves.

Why should they care about numbers, when the facts that promote indignation, planned protest, media scandal and claim to the always friendly and caring UN - which had this nice Nazi named Kurt Waldheim as president-, are exclusively connected with the Jewish guilt? Here are the roots of the immorality of Saramago, the roots of these lefty reactionaries, so concerned for the human rights, those who even consider the fall of the Berlin Wall as a tragedy. The left involved in Stalinist totalitarianism, and which on the other hand only recalls the guilt of fascism...; the same left fascinated by a local Third-World able to minimize and even comprehend fundamentalist totalitarianism; the same left that hates America because it actually hates, not its mistakes, but the values it stands for; the same left that hates Israel because it represents the most resistant and real rationalism. To state this among military news, terrorist attacks, and invasions would seem an inappropriate daring. However, only a state based on rational values could bear over 50 years filled with attempts of destruction. But still, the same left that has found in the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank the perfect excuse for channeling its anti-Semitism...

Obviously I cannot forget a key aspect: ignorance. The Middle East is the most mentioned subject in any distinguished group. But it is not very well known. The amount of lies has come to be so important, continuous and accurate that it has been able to create a parallel truth. A parallel reality.

Therefore, I write in favor of Israel because I am sick of the perverse use of the Holocaust, the pornographic trivialness used to play with the memory of the worst tragedy of humankind; and because, if I am Kafka, and Heine, and Freud, I am also each one of the victims who were killed in the final solution... Being European implies this terrible and unavoidable duality: either you are on the side of the victims, or you are on the side of the executioners. The indifference Broch highlighted cannot exist: no one who is not a victim turns out to be innocent.

The denial of the Holocaust leads naturally to the very process of distortion, the denial of the Palestinian violence. So, while Israeli victims do not exist, since they are made inevitable contingency, Palestinian victims are wrapped in an epic aureole that makes them greater beyond suffer. As if they were the chronicles of martyrdom, of this new religion that is, for some, the Palestinian cause. For this reason little Lea Schijverschunder, nine, who got seriously injured and lost five members of her family does not exist. A bomb-man... Galila Bugal, eleven, does not exist, or Shani Avi-Tzedek, fifteen, two of the victims of one of the buses crowded with civilians that bomb-men made explode. The dozens of children victims of the Bar Mitzva that a bomb-man decided to celebrate on his own way do not exist. Or the 23 people killed during the celebrations of the Pesaj, or the 8-month pregnant woman killed during the same terrorist act where among others, a baby was killed. Jews refugees do not exist either - a concept not even admitted by UNHCR- despite the fact that over 800,000 of them have had to leave the Arab countries, over 95% in many cases. Israeli victims to not exist because they are Jewish and, for that reason, they are responsible for their own death, a fatal destiny for those who have been born in the land chosen... for the extermination. Within the official Manichaeanism that dominates European media grammar, the victims can only be Palestinian; and the murderers can only be Jews. Any information that might twist this perfectly drawn duality is simply ignored.

This is how we create a new language for a new epic, since we lack old epics. The fanatical Palestinian murderers are called militiamen, a nice concept of old romantic resonance. They are not, then, madmen with hate in their soul and shrapnel in their stomach, they are resistant fighters. The indiscriminate bombs, designed to kill civilian victims and cooked in the kitchen of total hate are called fight acts. The very hate, planned from the Palestinian authority and perfectly structured as a collective way of thinking - hate at schools, at parties, in songs, in life - that old hate that led Golda Meir to pronounce a historical statement: "Peace will come when Palestinians love their children more than they hate Jews"; that is not hate, it is just simple and reasonable resentment.

A violent and totalitarian Arafat does not exist either, although his biography as a terrorist is as big as the hundreds of dead people he has left on his way. That blind leader that has been destroying every possibility of peace, who has cheated each of the Israeli leaders he has treated and who, above all, dynamited the big white hope of the Oslo Treatments; that man who embraces the Palestinian cause and who at the same time is allergic to a Palestinian state - a very significant nuance, since state means logistics, contradictions, trouble, and maybe liberties...- that character who never wanted a pact with Israel, but the extermination of Israel, and who deserved Clinton's contempt as he felt betrayed, just as the entire Israeli left; that leader of violence, main responsible for the current wave of terrorist attacks - and for many others - and whose love for the life of his people is quite slim. "We can survive Sharon but, can we survive Arafat?" said a Palestinian not long ago; that man who accumulates as many civilian deaths as historic mistakes, violent totalitarianism and corruption, and whose unique ecosystem is war: that man does not exist. For the Europe of the new morality before the Jews, he is seen as a poor and old resistant fighter, the last chance to fall in love again with a dictator. He is not a strategist, he is a terrorist. But we have decided that he is our terrorist, just as when our pirates were not pirates, but corsairs. As when Kissinger said about Pinochet: "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch".

All despite the fact that European media, those that write scandalized about Belen or Jenin or Gaza, could have had a feast after Palestinian violations of Oslo Agreements. And despite the fact that the accusations against Arafat for corruption of European aid, have been published even in Kuwait. And despite the fact that, if willing to demand trials for crimes committed again humankind, Arafat carries some bloody suitcases on his shoulders. Wouldn't the extermination of 30,000 Christian Libanese, some 10,000 at the hands of Arafat's militia, be a very nice headline? And despite the millions of petrodollars given to the Palestinian terrorism, and not to the schools and hospitals, or to infrastructures. That would be a great object of analysis. Despite the fact that when Gaza and the West Bank were under the control of the Arabs no one suggested a Palestinian state there, a nice debate subject ... And despite... But the media that determines that the occupation of the basilica of Belen by 150 heavily armed terrorists who put up to 40 bombs on the walls of the basilica is not a terrorist occupation, but the siege of the Israeli army against a sacred place... in that type of media, how important is information, rigor, truth and impartiality? Especially impartiality, after having chosen a comfortable and cathartic "pro-Palestinian impartiality".

In the bottom of this conscious or unconscious distortion of reality there is no room for a new way of fascism, the Islamic fundamentalism. There is only a justified fight. The fact that Hitler's Mein Kampf or the disgusting "Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Zion", created by the czarist secret services, are best-sellers in the Arab world might be a reasonable symptom of the civilized logic of things... It might also be reasonable that some Nazi European groups have celebrated the collapse of the World Trade Center and consider Bin Laden as a new Fürher: everything makes sense. Everything except that Europe is making the same mistakes again - "they are betraying us once more" can be heard in the streets of Israel -, unable to stand the Jews even now that they are no longer among them. How was that? They first said: "You cannot live among us as Jews". Then, "you cannot live among us". Eventually, "you cannot live". You cannot even live in Israel, a state created by Europe itself. That is the reason why Israel has to apologize for its acts, even if it is right. And it can never, ever, make mistakes.

Just as it can never lose. For after an Arab defeat another war comes, and another one, and another one. But the first Israeli defeat would lead to its absolute disappearance. "If somebody says that they want to destroy you, believe them", said Menahem Begin; and ten years after his death, this statement is truest than ever. Even among the most dogmatic sectors of the European way of thinking, there is something very clear: among the collective Israeli way of thinking, the irreversibility of a Palestinian state lies underneath, sooner or later. Its requirement is not the territory, it is peace. Let's think, for example, about the return of the entire Sinai to Egypt when peace with this country succeeded. "It is just desert", told me one of these ignorant intellectuals I have mentioned above.

He did not know, or wanted to know, that the Sinai was certainly a desert when it was occupied by Israel, but it was taken back with urbanized villages, hospitals, schools, and... petrol! The petrol Arabs did not even know that they had, and bearing in mind that Israel has no petrol. By the way, it was Sharon in person who obliged the colonists who had settled on the Sinai to return. Israel's obsession is security, and consequently, peace. Therefore, the continuous Arab defeats in the wars against Israel have a price: the price of Israel's security. In the collective Israeli way of thinking, and beyond some perfectly minimized radicals, there is no denial of the Palestinian right. Israel wants to live safely as a state, and it is precisely from security that it interacts with the environment, which has been completely aggressive so far. Among the collective Palestinian way of thinking, on the contrary, the will of making Israel disappear is what lies underneath while nearly nobody accepts the existence of two states. "After 32 years, where is the Palestinian movement called "Peace Now"?, tryingly wondered Mario Wainstein, co-founder of the movement Shalom Ajshav and active militant for the Palestinian-Israeli dialogue. "Where are the Palestinian intellectuals who show their condolences for our victims in terrorist attacks, like the twenty remarkable Israeli writers who went to the homes of the Palestinian victims to show their condolences?" Without ancient roots, lost within the great magma of the Arab identity - the very unreal myth of the Palestinian people was invented as an excuse for the Arab occupation - Palestinian identity is not only a recent phenomenon but it is, above all, built on hate of Israel. That is to say, if Europe can be explained in turn by its Jewish component and by its hate of the Jews, as if they were two sides of the same coin, Palestinian identity can essentially be explained only by its anti-Jewish component. It is for this reason that the Palestinians have such difficulty putting an end to their violence. Not only due to the irresponsibility of violent leaders like Arafat, or the close connection between the petrodollar and fundamentalism. There is a more subtle fact, maybe less tangible: If the Palestinians renounced their hate of the Jews, they would at the same time lose a significant part of their identity. In other words, they would have to reinvent themselves. But, are they ready to do such a thing? It does not seem so... So, Menahem Begin, if somebody says that they want to destroy you, believe them...

I write in favor of Israel, therefore, because I do not want to take part in the deliberate, continuous, and dangerous distortion of reality carried out by the European media, with very few exceptions. They are so close to the Palestinian cause that they even feel bad when they have to report something whose responsibility does not fall on Israel. Even the dead Israelis are reported as victims of Israel itself. As if Israel, actually, killed them. In favor of Israel, therefore, because I do not accept the use of defense of the Palestinian cause as a pretext for a new epidemic of anti-Semitism. Because I truly dislike the blindness of a left, my left, which is still based on its most retrograde habits, and which, led by its Judeophobia - never admitted but still perfectly proved - is unable to foresee the enormous danger of the new face of totalitarianism: Islamic fundamentalism. Glucksmann warned the Arab world on this situation not long ago: "Islam either manages to stop the madness of its militias, its young fighters of God, or will start its own ending once it falls in the hands of fanaticism, as it happened with other totalitarian ideologies in the 20th Century".

And adds, regarding the indiscriminate deaths of civilians: "Just as you cannot sleep with whoever you want to, you cannot kill whoever you want to either. Religion and culture must put the limit to his homicide nihilism in order to rule the warrior violence. When everything is permitted, God and tradition die; if everything continues to be permitted, society secular order also dies". Hate is legitimated when everything is permitted. When something is legitimated in the name of God, it reaches madness. As I am writing these lines, I hear about a new terrorist act: this time in the cafeteria Frank Sinatra, crowded with students from the Monte Scopus Hebrew University of Jerusalem. So far seven young people who were studying for their exams have been killed, while other 74 are injured. The headless nails inserted in the suicide bombs in order to increase the destructive power have no pity... The news arrive in the form of a bloody headline, but once again, the grammar is full of ideology: "Palestinian militiamen", "expected revenge", and "resistant"... Eventually, they will make us believe that Sharon has killed these young students. The legitimization of hate...

In favor of Israel, therefore, because, not forgetting the Palestinian cause, I can and I want to understand the Israeli cause as well. Does understanding mean accepting everything, justifying everything, assuming the many responsibilities it also has in the conflict? Obviously not, but I will not make the mistake committed by all those who, like me, express themselves in terms of comprehension towards Israel: I will not justify myself. The long series of multiple excuses, congratulations and justifications we have to write; all those who shyly raise our hands to say that Israel is also right is one of the most clear and exasperating processes of degradation of the opinion of our times. No one who writes in favor of the Palestinian reasons, although they show an abhorrent simplistic Manichaeanism, need to explain themselves. Universal reason is on their side even beyond reason. Nevertheless, the simple fact of trying to recover some of the pieces of this broken mirror that truth is and trying to recall that Israeli reasons, victims and pain also exist, implies a suspicious gesture by nature, a gesture that immediately makes us accomplice of terror. We almost have to prove that we are democrats, sometimes before long time democrats who do not feel ashamed when they defend acts of totalitarian terrorism. Within this coarse context of criminalization of the opinion that is not intensely pro-Palestinian we can find what many Jews call "Europe's current guilt" and which can be summarized in the statement that a Catalan Jewish, Ari Elijarrat, wrote to me in an e-mail: "the intense pro-Palestinian position of Europe is an enemy for the peace in the area". I am convinced of it, so I am going to put in words a real provocation: The European and the Palestinian meet in a common place full of connection and symbols, and that is why they are so close: their meeting point is Judeophobia. Europe is the main responsible for feeding it inside, for permitting it outside and for the fact that, at the moment, peace is not even in the far horizon... The Palestinians feel legitimated in their hate because Europe legitimates them day after day. By saying this I am not excluding the fact that Europe legitimated the reasons of the Palestinian cause, an appropriate and legitimate attitude. What I am denouncing is the legitimization of hate, which differs hugely.

A nice picture, a picture containing the pieces of the puzzle: Europe destroys an entire nation, it sends the rest of the wreckage far away from home convinced of its low value - the surprising Israeli victory in the wars to which the Jewish people were abandoned to are still recalled in the offices of Europe's power -. Then they deny the right to use the land they were thrown to, that piece of desert which everyone disregarded. Hence, the victorious Jewish is now again an uncomfortable and indigestible character, and, in addition, notoriously unpleasant, as unpleasant as the permanent vision of the own guilt. From the victorious Jewish we move on to the prosecutor Jewish, a much more digestible concept and in addition linked with our glorious past: Is it not the contemporary reappearance of the evil, monstrous usurer Jewish of our Middle Ages mentality? What a wonderful way of finding ourselves again! Even Elizabeth the Catholic, the one who is going to be made saint, was probably right!

I am and I feel of the left, although after reading this, Maruja Torres3 will have kicked me out of the Olympus, for in Spain the left is pro-Arab or otherwise is not... But, leaving gender subjects aside, being a lefty is, for me, something else than just an ideological label, it is, above all, an existential position toward life, toward society, toward the way of thinking. Being of the left implies exercising the dialectical sense, the critic and the self-critic, and the wish of transgressing reality in order to improve it. I have never understood why when this position turns into ideology, at times it becomes an excuse for channeling uncritical dogma, a simplistic Manichaeanism, indeed racism. Or directly, for verbalizing nonsense. Anti-Americanism, for instance, a huge nonsense owned by the way of thinking of the left that does not think too much. Or Judeophobia, never admitted but always present. Or anti-Zionism, an umbrella used to comfortably protect old anti-Semitism. Or... That is the reason why I write in favor of Israel, because a left that does not follow propaganda must exist, a left that embraces causes without killing others', a left that loves Palestine because it also understands and loves Israel. A left, in any case, that when reading about 'refugees camps in Jenin' - refugees? In Jenin? - starts laughing instead of crying hurt by the betrayal that information suffers in the hands of reporters. A left that feels accomplice of the Israeli left, and it looks for and cannot manage to find the Palestinian left... A left that can defend a cause, but that will never accept the fact that a cause can do anything; indiscriminate death, for instance... A left, after all, which feels guilty as European, and is not willing to betray again its Jewish soul. Does it exist? I claim it for me and for many others, despite of being aware of the minority within the uncritical Pro-Palestinian magma that covers us. I say this in case I have not made myself clear enough: its defect is not its Palestinian complicity. Its fault is its uncritical position.

Therefore: In favor of Israel, the most intelligent, reasonable, cautious and honest way of being in favor of Palestine.

"Am Israel jai be-Israel" ("The people of Israel live in Israel"). It was on the 14th of May 1948 and this statement, uttered by Ben Gurion, closed a cycle of thousands of years full of dispersion, prosecution, death, and resistance. Nevertheless, nothing kept Palestinian people from living as a neighbor. People who arrived massively in the deserts of Judea precisely because Jewish did... Over 50 years later, Palestinians have not yet understood the fact that Israel is entitled to exist. However, and despite the camaraderie they receive from their European allies, their only chance to win is by understanding...

Endnotes
1 Translator's Note: Saramago, José. Portuguese writer.
2 Translator's Note: Valle-Inclán, Ramón del, 1866-1936, Spanish writer, a member of the Generation of '98. In his later works he satirized Spanish life in grotesque caricatures that he called esperpentos.
3 Translator's Note: Torres, Maruja. Spanish writer.

"Israeli helicopters blasted Gaza City with at least 14 missiles, targeting weapons factories"

Even if they bombed the house of an old lady they would have called it a "bomb factory." And who in the mainstream media would have dug through the rubble to give us another side of the story? Nobody!

The question is who paid for that terrorist helicopter in your photo? The American taxpayers! And boy are they getting a lot of hatred for their money. Thanks Israel.

Israel is the tail wagging the American dog.

You sure do spend a lot of time without saying much.

Viva the progressive left! In spite of what you say, we aren't anti-anybody. We are pro-everybody. We see some Europeans taking land away from Palestinians and we say that's not right.

We remember that Europeans killed millions of Jews (among others) and that Palestinians are being made to pay the price and we say, that's not right.

We see Americans being asked to pay for Israeli ethnic cleansing and we ask, is that what Americans want to do with money we have to borrow against the future? What about American schools and American infrastructure? What about aid to countries who aren't taking land from their neighbors?

We see all the legitimate need going unmet in the world and we see the greedy few squandering more and more and we say that isn't right.

The progressive left is wonderful. I may not agree with all of them, but deep in my heart I love them all.

No, that would be a "sex bomb factory" .

Why doesn't the "left" protest the treatment of Arabs by totalitarians? Is it OK for gays to be killed just for being gay? Is it OK for women to be abused and stripped of basic rights? What about the Arab individual who has no voice, no future and no hope? See, my problem is that the left only chooses issues where there is a spotlight tinted with anti-Americanism. The left doesn't care any more for the Palestinians than it does the Saudis, Iraqi or Syrians. Devoid of any ideas, the left has borrowed from the totalitarian cultures that we are in the process of annihilating. Yep, its the Zionists and American Imperialism that has created the most pathetic, weakest human society in the history of the world-- i.e., the Arab world. Just to let you know, blaming the problems of the world or any part of the world on Zionism makes you look like an intellectual retard and serves to weaken your cause. My quess, however, is that the "left" does not have a cause-- it merely has an identity. Its cause isn't human rights, since it ignores the most vile abuses through-out the Arab and third-world. Its certainly not interested in creating a better standard of living for the Mideast or promoting even the most primitive forms of freedom. Its not even interested in advising the Palestinians to do those things that would help their cause -- i.e., stop using the lives of your kids to make cheap political points. Their interested in an abstract, unproductive concept of identity that they have chosen for themselves. Its sad and amusing at the same time.

"Viva the progressive left!"
Progressive? How did you come to that conclusion?
It is amazing how left wingers like to think highly of themselves, their opinions, and righteousness, while seeing everything that contradicts them as just the opposite, evil low and essentially bad.
Progressive sounds like progress and advanced, that smells good…
Well to tell you the truth, your opinions are anything but “Progressive”, actually they are as old as the history of religion: Identify the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli usual suspect/victim and crucify him.
The essence of the left is the ability to look from above and CRITISIZE all the rest of us” simple” human beings, from some “Non Existent Higher Moral Ground”…
Each and every sentence and assumption within your comment is prejudiced and racist.

I was imagining what constructive and heroic things might be done if the left possessed courage. I know, its a difficult mental exercise-- but well worth the intellectual fatigue. First, suppose that the left in the US looked at Saudi Arabia and thought "Ah ha, here's our opportunity to highlight our failed energy policy and to point out the sick brutality of this totalitarian regime." They might be in the street protesting US support for Saudi Arabia's monarchy-- which is the antipode of all that the left claims to believe. Besides the fact that this regime teaches a hatred of all liberal and Western ideas-- not only in the Kingdom, but through-out the Islamic world -- it also is one of the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. According to Amnesty Int'l and Freedom House, Saudi Arabia is in the top 5 of the most oppressive countries in the world. Saudi Arabia makes Cuba look like a champion of tolerance and freedom. It has no problem with torture and murder (of political dissidents, homosexuals, "witches", etc). It has no tolerance towards any religion besides its radical version of Islam. Of course, free speech/expression, free thought and any sort of criticism of the regime is a "no-no".

Combine taking a moral stand against our "ally", Saudi Arabia, with a plan to eliminate dependence on totalitarian oil-- and the left might just have a viable strategy. After all, terrorism is a result of totalitarian governments that must promote anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism in order to maintain their power. Terrorism is sanctioned by this government-- since those who promote and justify terrorism are not dead or in jail in Saudi Arabia (like those who advocate unsanctioned beliefs and ideals). Without oil revenue, the Saudis would be forced to develop the productive capabilities of their people in order to survive economically (a novel idea!). It wouldn't have the resources to promote terrorist ideologies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine or elsewhere in the Islamic world. It wouldn't have the resources to thwart democratic movements in neighboring countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc).
Creating an alternative to totalitarian oil would serve the interest of various groups on the political left-- environmentalists, human rights advocates and who are partial to large government projects. A "Manhattan Project" to free us from totalitarian oil might just resonate with the American public-- (something the left has been unable to do in the US for several decades). Real dollars (hundreds of billions) being spent on developing cheap, environmentally friendly energy sources would be an easier sell than national healthcare-- and is certain to spur innovations that will strengthen our economy (it could make the biotech and IT industries look like chump change).

What makes this opportunity even more appealing is that it creates embarrassment for the Republican party and George Bush. It forces them to justify their dependence on oil when it threats our national security. They will have to explain why the interests of the oil industry (which Bush and Cheney are a product) are more important than the safety, security and health of America. Then, the left can ask "Why spend 200 billion to liberate Iraq, when we can take the same resources to liberate ourselves from totalitarian oil, while pressuring the region to enact real democratic reforms?" Of course, this opportunity requires some attributes that aren't currently possessed by the left: namely, courage, constructive problem-solving and the desire to be productive.

Instead of siezing the opportunity of adding value to this country, I suspect the left will continue to be a cheerleader for anti-Americanism, even when doing so compromises their stated values. They will parrot the totalitarian rhetoric of our enemies (i.e., Zionists control the US and are the real problem...blah, blah, blah) and offer nothing of substance to address pressing issues. They will talk of great moral issues and humanitarian sentiment-- but will remain silent as Arabs (fellow human beings) are brutalized everywhere...except in Israel and the US.

... you make some strong points occasionally. particularly, your point that why doesn't the left support all who are oppressed anywhere on the globe, instead of behaving as opportunists looking for a chance to bash america.

but as i zoom out from your arguments, i pick up problems.

first, once again it is the same point i had with you before. namely, you seem to suggest that the arab world is incapable of taking care of itself, that it is backward, retarded, and undeveloped. and because of it's problems, the western world must come in and "rescue it from itself."

the problem dan is on what grounds can the west claim that it is The Answer for Everybody? are we so godly and righteous and superior in all regards that we can just swoop in anywhere and do our business and everyone will live happily ever after?

i believe that if fundamentalist islam didn't pose a threat or an antagonistic force to the west and western interests (by terorrism), we would let these countries be as backward as they are without a second glance. but as soon as soon as there's a threat, our actions have to be justified. and it seems to me, the whole "those poor muslims can't take care of themselves" line is used as an excuse for the west to kick the door down in the middle east, barge in, destroy the threat, and set up shop according to the west's designs.

i don't buy it that the bush administration wants to invade iraq simply because the iraqi people are quite obviously oppressed. that's sweet talk and pretext and rhetoric.

and so what concerns the "left" is that the so-called "reasons" for our invasion are really just lies and pretexts and not genuine concerns about the health and well being of the iraqi people, or the people or saudi arabia, or syria, or iran. the u.s. wouldn't invade unless there was more to the story, unless there was some pay-off in the end. so the "left" picks up on this dishonesty.

it's not the left doesn't want the iraqi people to be free. it's that the dream of the iraqi people, or the saudi people being "free" (free according to western standards) is being used as a cover for geopolitical power struggles and oil dominance issues. this bothers me. this bothers many on the "left". rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally, we don't trust this adminstrations designs on the middle east. we think that for every genuine thing the adminstration says, there's 5 tons of B.S. to go along with it.

now, should the left then get up off it's ass and really do something about it? hell yes. is there a conflict to be against a war in iraq that may leave the iraqi people "better off", and also claim that you stand for freedom and equality? perhaps. but i don't see why the trouble the "left" is having in getting out a consistent message, and a message applied on a consistent basis, neccessarily means that the message of the "left" has died and gone to hell, while meanwhile the message of the "right" (which is what? continual war? provactive foreign policy? free market economics backed up by armored divisions? some kind of bill bennet righteous christain morality imposed as the only possible way to live? i mean, what the hell is the message of the "right"?) is transcendant and is all humanity has to do to achieve heaven on earth. i think it's unwise to discount the "left", and treat the "left" as if it was beaten and should just go away and die in a ditch. sorry, it doesn't work like that. as long as there's a "right", there's gonna be a "left".

i find your comments that the "left" isn't doing anything about trying to break america's addicition to oil rather ill-informed are preposterous.

are those radical young republicans doing the monthy critical mass rides through cities? are those republican city councils and mayors pressing for more bike lanes and light rail and better public transport? are those republican think tanks named the sierra club? are those republican senators calling for increased fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards?

no. it isn't.

so it's somehow entirely the "left's" fault that GM and ford don't have massive fleets of cars that use fuel cells?

no. it isn't. the fault lies with the monstrous, stultified car and oil corporations, backed by key politicians, who know they should change but would rather hold on to the status quo because they are making more money with oil based technologies than with fuel cell technologies (here's an example of capitalism being unwilling to change simply because the profits keep coming in, despite the interests of the environment and human life). and they are going to ride those huge profits for as long as possible, no matter how much they damage the earth. and despite the best efforts of the "left".

and finally, i'm not sure israel and it's occupation of palestine provides any kind of a moral basis or groundwork At All in saying that "america and israel" are the "paths to freedom" for the arab world. i would be very, very careful in using the name of israel in such a discussion...

<first, once again it is the same point i had with you before. namely, you seem to suggest that the arab world is incapable of taking care of itself, that it is backward, retarded, and undeveloped. and because of it's problems, the western world must come in and "rescue it from itself.">
True totalitarianism, as part of its very nature, weakens the individual to the point where meaningful resistence is difficult-- if not impossible. It also creates a society that cannot be compete in an Age (Information Age) where the free flow of information and its conversion to knowledge determines political, economic and social progress. This is not to imply that the Arab people are incapable of taking care of themselves. It is only to say that the totalitarian regimes that control the thoughts, ideas, norms, expressions, etc of the Arab world have made their people dependent, weak and non-threatening. The frustration that this type of existence creates was channeled into-anti-Western, anti-Democratic and anti-Israeli sentiment. A totalitarian government can deny the individual anything (free speech, education, etc)...except the ability to blame someone for their problems. This has culminated into the war in which we are currently fighting. We were attacked by the product of totalitarianism-- surrogates of an ideology that negates the individual, our values and our institutions. We're it not for Sept 11th, we may have been content to allow the Arab world to be ruled by totalitarians forever-- just as we may have been content to allow Japan and Germany to exercise totalitarian rule had it not been for Pearl Harbor. Every year and every day before Sept 11 was an opportunity for the Arab people to take accountability for their own lives. Unfortunately, they are weakened by totalitarianism -- just as the Germans and Russians were weakened by totalitarianism. The Arab people do need help-- just like other nations have needed help. The Western world will not rescue the Arab people from themselves-- but from their totalitarian leaders. They will then be given the reigns to their own future via a democratic model of their choosing.

<i believe that if fundamentalist islam didn't pose a threat or an antagonistic force to the west and western interests (by terorrism), we would let these countries be as backward as they are without a second glance.>

True. That's the premise of our "live and let live" global strategy, which has some major problems.

< but as soon as soon as there's a threat, our actions have to be justified. and it seems to me, the whole "those poor muslims can't take care of themselves" line is used as an excuse for the west to kick the door down in the middle east, barge in, destroy the threat, and set up shop according to the west's designs. >

Setting up shop according to the West's designs is preferable to allowing the by-products of totalitarians to threaten our interests, people, institutions and values. More realistically, they will be allowed to set up a representative government that best suits their society-- with fundamental checks-balances and rights built in. Then, each person will have a vote whether or not to pursue the course of annihilation and non-development or the path of freedom and self-determination. Free people just get along better...they don't generally choose annihilation. The long term prospects for the Arab world under totalitarianism is annihilation.
<i don't buy it that the bush administration wants to invade iraq simply because the iraqi people are quite obviously oppressed. that's sweet talk and pretext and rhetoric. >
No...he and a large number of Americans feel the need to liberate Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. That's the only way to assure any kind of security and peace. It is the hope that the fall of Iraq will inspire democratic reform through-out the region.

<and so what concerns the "left" is that the so-called "reasons" for our invasion are really just lies and pretexts and not genuine concerns about the health and well being of the iraqi people, or the people or saudi arabia, or syria, or iran. the u.s. wouldn't invade unless there was more to the story, unless there was some pay-off in the end. so the "left" picks up on this dishonesty. >
The pay-off at the end is a better life for those currently living under totalitarianism and greater security for the West.

<it's not the left doesn't want the iraqi people to be free. it's that the dream of the iraqi people, or the saudi people being "free" (free according to western standards) is being used as a cover for geopolitical power struggles and oil dominance issues. this bothers me. this bothers many on the "left". rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally, we don't trust this adminstrations designs on the middle east. we think that for every genuine thing the adminstration says, there's 5 tons of B.S. to go along with it. >

I don't trust a great deal from this administration either. I just don't believe that Bush would survive politically if he doesn't establish a democratic government in Iraq-- after an invasion to remove Saddam. Whatever the pretext, I view that as a good thing for Iraq and the region in the long- and short-term.

<i find your comments that the "left" isn't doing anything about trying to break america's addicition to oil rather ill-informed are preposterous. >

Whatever its done hasn't been effective in reaching the American public. The Raelians have done a better job of getting their ideas presented to the American public than those who seek to minimize our dependence on foreign oil. It certainly wasn't a platform the Democrats ran on last election. Cynthia McKinney wasn't seeking to promote alternatives to foriegn oil when she served as an apologist for the Saudis or their terrorist surrogates.

<and finally, i'm not sure israel and it's occupation of palestine provides any kind of a moral basis or groundwork At All in saying that "america and israel" are the "paths to freedom" for the arab world. i would be very, very careful in using the name of israel in such a discussion...>

I can find where I said this...At any rate, its not consistent with my views.

Western-style institutions are no guarantee against totalitarianism. Look at Germany in the early 30s. It was a very Western, educated, "democratic" society. The world looked to it as a centre of culture and political maturity.
You think our leaders don't know this? They know, alright. You can rest assured that they know and know well as only those who have studied these things with an eye to recreating them, know.

"Don't rejoice in his defeat, you men.
For though the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again."
-Bertolt Brecht

Contaminated goods

Osama El-Baz* reminds Arab and Islamic proponents of anti-Semitism that they are purveying shoddy goods of purely Western make. The article is an abridged version of a three-part study published in the Arabic daily Al-Ahram
----------------------

....Because anti-Semitism is a secular concept and not contiguous with religious affiliation, its proponents required particular proofs to back the theory. Among the most broadly disseminated "proofs" were the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the tales of Christian blood in Jewish matzo. Although such claims have never been corroborated, their widespread currency fuelled hatred and fear of Jews.

The so-called Protocols -- of which there were 24 in the original 110-page version -- were attributed to a cabal of rabbis who ostensibly published them in 1897, with the purpose of recording their conspiracy to create a global empire subject to Jewish rule. Freemasons, liberals, secularists, atheists and socialists were variously accused of conspiring with these rabbis to achieve their dream of world domination.

There is a large body of evidence suggesting the Protocols were a forgery. It is hardly credible that a handful of individuals from a small minority should meet and set down their scheme to rule the world in a 110-page pamphlet that would be exposed sooner or later. Several experts have also pointed to a work that appeared in 1864 by Maurice Joly, Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, or Politics in the 19th Century, which has many stylistic similarities to the Protocols. And is it not a little strange that a group of rabbis would write a document of this type without using a single word of Hebrew, the language of the Torah and Talmud, or Yiddish, the language of Ashkenazi Jews which is still used in newspapers in Europe and the Americas today?

Given the revolutions and upheavals Europe experienced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it is likely that the Protocols were produced by conservative elements seeking to halt what they perceived as decline by attributing it to a vast conspiracy masterminded by European Jews. One needs only read the opening pages of the Protocols to realise its fraudulent nature. In the first protocol, for example, the authors attribute to themselves the vilest traits: "Through the press we have gained our influence while we remained behind the curtain. Through the press we accumulated gold, and we did not care that that caused rivers of blood to flow." Senior clergymen of any religion do not voluntarily level such charges against themselves and their coreligionists and then disseminate them on paper.

The blood in the matzo myth has a long history. In its original form Jews were accused of killing a Christian, preferably a child, on Easter to mock Christ on the day commemorating his crucifixion. Since Easter and the Jewish Pesach, or Passover, fall at the same time in the year, the tale evolved to include the claim that the Jews used the blood of their victims in religious rituals, particularly in making matzo, the unleavened bread used to commemorate the Exodus. It was also said that Jews used blood in the manufacture of medicines.

Some Arab writers, commentators and individuals belonging to groups that describe themselves as Islamic have evinced a crude sympathy for Nazism despite the fact that it is alien to the beliefs and practices of Arab and Muslim peoples. Nazism is founded on a fanatical racist theory, expounded by Hitler in Mein Kampf, that holds that the Aryan race is inherently superior and therefore has the right to subjugate other peoples. Towards the Jews, the Nazis adopted what they called the "final solution", rubric for a programme of systematic physical extermination. Jews were not the only group to suffer such barbarity. The Nazis also targeted gypsies, Slavs, the infirm, crippled and indigent.



Click to view caption
Nazi soldiers clearing out the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 (top); Israeli soldiers rounding up Palestinian youth in 2002
'The Arab cause is just and there is no excuse for borrowing from a legacy inconsistent with the tenets of our beliefs and the realities of our history, no excuse for not presenting our cause in its proper logical and moral framework'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who admire Hitler for his demagogic hold over the masses or for his enmity to Britain, once the occupying power over Egypt and other Arab countries, would do well to recall the disasters he inflicted on his people. Hitler executed those who opposed him. He masterminded the horrors of the concentration camps into which the Jews and other "undesirables" in Germany and the countries occupied by the Nazis were rounded up and eventually exterminated in vast numbers.

Some writers have questioned the numbers of Jews that died as the result of Nazi atrocities. It is also true that some Jewish writers, such as Norman Finklestein in The Holocaust Industry, maintain that Zionist organisations capitalised on the Holocaust, an exploitation that has tarnished the memory of the victims of the concentration camps, including the author's mother.

What concerns us here, however, is not scale of the tragedy, or how it was later used, but rather that it happened at all. Jews in Europe were the victims of a rabid anti- Semitism. To anthropologists and ethnologists, the term "Semitic" refers to all peoples, Jews, Arabs and others descended from Abraham. The apologists for anti- Semitism, however, do not use the term in its technical sense, but rather to target Jews in Europe and this, in turn, gave rise to such concepts as the "Jewish character", "Jewish morals", "Jewish culture", and "Jewish people".

Such notions are founded on two fallacies. The first is that Jews share inherent biological, physical and moral traits and tend towards specific occupations. These allegedly distinct ethnic, behavioural and cultural traits make the Jews a singular race. To the proponents of such concepts Jews are "alien", the "other"....

Dear Moshe,

"Progressive? How did you come to that conclusion?"

Progressive left distinguishes us from centrist democrats and such that are for human rights in El Salvador, but tremble like a leaf when you mention anything critical of Israel.

Most of the rest of your so-called argument is empty of content and full of semi-personal attacks.

"Well to tell you the truth, your opinions are anything but “Progressive”, actually they are as old as the history of religion: Identify the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli usual suspect/victim and crucify him. "

Right! Pure hysterical (and manipulative) bullshit.

European anti-Semitism is the source of the problem, yet we (as Westerners) tried to absolve ourselves of our guilt about anti-Semitism by allowing European Jews to seize land from people who were innocent bystanders.

We financed Israel and turned a blind eye while Irgun and other Israeli terrorist groups stampeded the indigenous people off their land.

There may be parallels in the Arab world, but for the most part no other nation in the world comes anywhere close to receiving the so much American largess.

We (meaning America) have paid enormous sums of money to Israel, we let Israel develop nuclear weapons using our technology, we gave Israel access to much of our military technology (not just sold them weapons, but gave them our technology which they have in turn sold to China for example).

Many of you self-absorbed zionists keep asking why we on the PROGRESSIVE LEFT aren't protesting Arab human rights violations. Well, we are not as responsible for their misdeeds as we are for Israel's since we are footing the bills.

"Each and every sentence and assumption within your comment is prejudiced and racist. "

You Moshe are the racist. You are the one who is prejudiced. In your world view a Palestinian child's death is less tragic than an Jewish child's death. A bomb dropped from a million dollar jet supplied by the USA is "justified" but a bomb strapped to the body of someone who's been dispossessed of land, culture, freedom, education, and hope by an oppressive system of Israeli occupation is "terrorist."

I see both as equally tragic, but I carry more guilt about the former because I know my tax dollars paid for that plane and paid for that bomb.

You know Moshe, maybe you should spend a little vacation in the Occupied Territories. Go there and see what the IDF has done to the lives of Palestinians. I guarantee you that if you spent 2 weeks living with the Palestinians, your whole view of the conflict would change.

There are several wonderful organizations where you could set up such a visit -- Global Exchange, the International Solidarity Movement, the Middle East Children's Alliance.

Viva the Progressive Left!

I was wondering if their were any vacation tours sponsored by the left looking at totalitarianism in the Arab world. I'd love to visit the political dissidents in Saudi prisons, gays scheduled for execution, witches (yes they still hunt witches) and others who don't conform to the authoritarian leadership of the region. I'd also be interested in seeing first hand how a society creates the most pathetic economic, political, educational and social system in the history of the world. Fun stuff, there! Let me know...

Also, if you have the time-- explain to me why the left doesn't give a rats ass about Arab people outside of Israel/Palestine. Do they not deserve basic rights, freedoms, protections, etc? Just curious....

I'm perplexed by this consistent pattern where we (the progressive left) point out the human gross human rights violations of the Israelis and some rocket scientist thinks that mentioning Arab violations nulifies our criticism.

The United States is not financing the Arab states!

At this very moment Israel is shaking their tin cup in our direction and they're begging for $14 BILLION in American spare change.

America can't afford decent schools and yet the Israeli Lobby has got American politicians so scared that the chances are Israel will get the money, and jet fighters, and bombs they need to steal more Palestinian land, while American public school children will settle for overcrowded classrooms and hand-me-down books.

Of course American school children don't have a powerful lobby buying politicians on their behalf like Israel does.

I agree with you that religious fundamentalism is vile, but that goes not only for Muslim fundamentalists, but for Christian fundamentalists and Jewish zealots as well.

Then again I can't help wondering how much more pluralistic and modern the Muslim world would be without all the covert political warfare the West has waged to prop up dictatorships that give good deals to our oil companies.

Viva the progressive left!

Ok, let me once and for all, finally and never again, answer this trivial question about why the progressive left is not concerned about human rights violations anywhere else except in Israel/Palestine:

We are. The progressive left has worked on human rights issues everywhere on the globe. Not all of us are mobilized on any one issue although it may seem like it to you.

Some people on the progressive left are working on environmental issues and they don't care too much about international politics. Some of us are working on women's issues. Some people on the progressive left are working for Indigenous Peoples in Chiapas, while others are working in Kenya, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, India, and elsewhere.

You name a country and I guarantee you there is a progressive leftist, or dozens, or thousands, trying to spread justice and human rights there.

That's that. End of argument.

Secondly, for your information, only a fraction of the progressive left works on the issue of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. Most of us (or at least a large percentage of us) are afraid of the caustic consequences of being labeled anti-Semitic (an accusation which is casually leveled at anyone who questions Israeli policies).

It may surprise you, but many of us on the progressive left are too sensitive to work on the Israel issue because such charges are just too painful for the kind of caring individuals that work on progressive issues.

For many of us the fear of having to defend ourselves against such charges, the fear of hurting or alienating our Jewish friends or family, is too great in spite of the human rights tragedy being conducted with American money.

So this issue, the toughest, most painful issue that we on the progressive left address, is left to those of us with thicker skins.

As long as we are on the topic...

From what I've read here on indy, zionists seem to prefer to use words as weapons ("terrorist," "self-hating," "anti-Semitic") instead of addressing the underlying arguments of the people they disagree with.

If I say let the Palestinians have their state based on the green line. You say I'm an "anti-Semite." If a Palestinian says give me my land back, then you call him a "terrorist." If a Jew refuses to serve in the IDF beyond the green line you call him "self-hating."

In each case you use words to negate the humanity and the motivations of the person who questions Israeli policies, and you escape the responsibility of addressing the issue.

When we bring up Israeli human rights violations, zionists bring up Arab human rights violations. What does the one have to do with the other?

Yes I'm opposed to Arab human rights violations, but that's not what I'm working on. I'm working on making sure that American tax dollars (to the tune of billions and billions and billions every year) aren't being used to finance ethnic cleansing in Israel.

If and when that issue is resolved, I'll move on to another progressive issue, like sweatshops in Guam or something.

Keep up the good work.

"The United States is not financing the Arab states!"

Well except for Turkey, Jordan, U.A.E. Qatar and Saudi Arabia, (not for long though) and OH YA the 2 billion they send each year to Egypt as part of the camp David peace deal with Israel. (Here is 2 billion to not get your ass kicked again by Israel) I think some of these Arab states are making out as good as Israel.
I though most people here already knew America can't keep its nose out of other peoples business.

The left is not only unconcerned with Arab totalitarianism and what it produces for the Arab people (cause they don't give a damn about the Arab people except as a it serves their rhetorical goals)-- the left if completely ineffective in achieving anything that might be viewed as meaningful change. It prioritizes the interests a 6 million Palestinians -- over the interest of over 100 million Arabs who live under totalitarian regimes (as well as the interests of 300 million Americans). Truth be told, its is likely that the left is hurting the cause of the Palestinians in the US-- since it seems the left cannot be an advocate of anything without interjecting Marxist and or anti-American sentiment. Just to let you know, this interjection will continually be rejected by the American people. Yep, the far left is not just hypocrical and repulsive to American values and ideals-- it is counter-productive to what it claims to support. It claims to support human rights-- but it is silent on the abuses of every totalitarian governement of the Arab and Islamic world (including the abuse documented by Amnesty and Rights Watch concerning the Palestinian Authority). It does, however, muster the courage to co-opt the catch-phrases that have helped retard the polical, economic and social growth of the Arab world ("Zionism", etc) . What an impressive display of the pathetic and ineffectual!

The far ("progressive") left is merely an identity-- a caricature of ego projection that advances nothing but its own contempt, self-nausea and intellectual immaturity. This identity is more important to the "progressive" left than the Palestinians, Arabs, Americans, world peace, the environment, economic justice or any other cause it purports to advance. Most Americans prefer to identify with groups and individuals that actually seek to solve problems.

By working on things such as the destruction of capitalism and America's abondonment of Israel in favor of Arab totalitarianism-- the progressive left is spinning its wheels. It will NEVER affect these changes because these proposals contradict American values. America might be convinced to pressure Israel to reach a peace settlement but it will not stop supporting the only democratic state in the region. It will certainly never, ever support the types of tactics used by the Palestinians to secure their "freedom" -- especially when most Americans are convinced that this "freedom" will translate into another totalitarian state. Peaceful demonstrations, non-violent protests-- these would help Americans to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. A democratic Palestine would also go along way to winning American support. If they don't want American support (which assures them of failure, if they want their own state), then they are free to continue as they have and as the rest of the Arab world has proceeded. Just to let you know, Americans are free not to support those who oppose our values, ideals and institutions. We don't have to buy into the rhetoric of Hamas, Hizballah or the totalitarian controlled Arab media.

Here's the thing Daniel, if you are interested in working for the welfare of the 100 million (which I rather doubt), then go for it.

Barbara Lubin's group, The Middle Eastern Children's Alliance is doing some great things in Iraq, maybe if you are concerned about the welfare of Arabs living under totalitarian regimes, you could volunteer or donate money to her group.

As to the money we send to Egypt, Turkey, etc., if you added it all up it wouldn't come near the percapita welfare we give to Israel (remember the Israelis are asking for $14 BILLION worth of welfare this year alone!!!)

I think $14 BILLION worth of welfare for Israel is pretty Marxist. And it's pretty anti-American to have all that money go for Jewish-only roads to Jewish-only settlements. Do you have Jewish-only drinking fountains too?

If Americans knew about the civil rights violations, the human rights violations, the torture, the collective punishment, the daily humiliation, they would be filled with revultion and shame at what our money has bought.

You keep talking about the "Far Left" as if we were liberals who are afraid to be labeled. The far left isn't so far away from main stream America, we just don't have access to the media like the corporate jackals who fleece the American people and play them for suckers.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people forever.

Viva the left.

Viva human rights for Palestinians who are oppressed with BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars from the pockets of hard working Americans who wouldn't agree to it if they knew.

David, you seem to have some vague understanding of the difference between the Arab people and their totalitarian governments, but your ability to distinguish the masses from the affluent few falls short when the country examined is America or Israel. The left is not anti-American, nor is it anti-Semitic. We are for the people, not for the power mongers who make up the governments. I don't know too much about the inner workings of the Israeli state, but I do know that here in America regular people have far less say in their government than do big money interests. So when I and others on the left criticize America we are criticizing the corporate-funded government, not the people. We ARE the people!

You say that we only focus on issues that make America look bad. First of all, it doesn't take much to make America look bad (the government and its policies). All you need is a little history and a modicum of respect for the truth. But what is the point of me talking about how horrible Saddam Hussein is? I have no control over what he does! I do (ostensibly) have control over what my government does, or at least I should. And if I don't it is my responsibility to keep it in line. As an American. As a patriotic American.

You say that we don't care about the oppressive Arab regimes. I disagree. When I hear right wing pundits going off on the uncivilized Arabs and how they are not capable of democracy, I want to vomit because it is our government policy that helped erect these fundamentalist dictators. The strain of fundamentalist Islam practiced by the Taliban comes from the one practiced in Saudi Arabia. You are right, Saudi Arabia is a basket case! But the very fact that our government continues to support it (along with Israel, and others) is proof that our leaders care less about democracy and human rights than they do about oil profits and imperial domination.

Bush doesn't care about liberating the Iraqis. You said that he does because a democratic government would stabilize the region. Stability is the very reason our governments SUPPORTS dictators. It is the very reason Bush Sr. did not topple Saddam in Gulf War I.

The extent of your knowledge concerning the issues important to the left seems to me to be very lacking.

<You say that we don't care about the oppressive Arab regimes. I disagree. >

Where are the protests by the left over US support of totalitarians? When gays and democratic advocates and witches are executed in Saudi Arabia, where is the left?

<When I hear right wing pundits going off on the uncivilized Arabs and how they are not capable of democracy, I want to vomit because it is our government policy that helped erect these fundamentalist dictators. >

Me too...But the most prominent place that you hear this logic is via state run Arab media. The arguement goes..."our people aren't sophisticated enough to handle the responsibility of government...Blah, blah, blah.."

<The strain of fundamentalist Islam practiced by the Taliban comes from the one practiced in Saudi Arabia. You are right, Saudi Arabia is a basket case! But the very fact that our government continues to support it (along with Israel, and others) is proof that our leaders care less about democracy and human rights than they do about oil profits and imperial domination. >

Is this the reason that the left is silent on Saudi totalitarianism?

<Bush doesn't care about liberating the Iraqis. You said that he does because a democratic government would stabilize the region. Stability is the very reason our governments SUPPORTS dictators. It is the very reason Bush Sr. did not topple Saddam in Gulf War I. >

50 years of totalitarian rule demonstrates that our course of action was wrong for the region. Bush Sr., in hindsight, should have advocated a democratic Iraq and removed Saddam. If you are right and Bush doesn't want a democratic government in Iraq and the promotion of democracy through the region-- he will find himself a one term president (my opinion) with challenges coming from his own party.

<Here's the thing Daniel, if you are interested in working for the welfare of the 100 million (which I rather doubt), then go for it.>

I'm certainly going to do what I can.

<Barbara Lubin's group, The Middle Eastern Children's Alliance is doing some great things in Iraq, maybe if you are concerned about the welfare of Arabs living under totalitarian regimes, you could volunteer or donate money to her group. >

Treating the symptoms of totalitarianism is not enough (poilitical, economic, social retardation)-- and will consistently fail our interests and the interests of the Arab people. Removing the cancer (totalitarianism) and replacing it with a representaive government is a better long-term alternative. To accomplish this, I have given time and money to Arab and American groups promoting democratic reform for the region. It is my belief that creating non-dependent, free men and women is the proper ethical choice (given the scarcity of time and money). This, of course, is merely my opinion and choice.

<You keep talking about the "Far Left" as if we were liberals who are afraid to be labeled. The far left isn't so far away from main stream America, we just don't have access to the media like the corporate jackals who fleece the American people and play them for suckers. >

The "Media is Against Me" mantra has been used by the left, the right, the center, Islamic totalitarians and others who have a difficult time explaining their inability to convince the American people.

It seems to me, David, that you and I are not too different. We both think that totalitarianism in the Arab world is unfortunate and a problem. We both think that the US had a hand in bringing about the current situation. You, however, wish to blame everything on the left and you seem to have a very fairy-tale idealistic view of our president and his intentions in Iraq.

Yes, I do believe that Bush, if we oust Saddam Hussein, will step in a direction that looks democratic. There is no way he can't, with everyone watching. Just like in Afghanistan: instead of supporting another dictatorship to replace our pals in the Taliban, we put in a president of our choosing, using a grand council that was widely attended and influenced by the war lords of the area that helped bring about the instability and suffering in the first place. Truly progressive and democratic groups like RAWA, who had been figthing underground for democratic reform for decades, were not consulted by the Bush administration, just as the democratic resistances in Iraq were snubbed by the first Bush.

Democracy is not our goal. Look at history! Look at the "elections" in South Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala. And remember all the legitimate, indigenous elections that our National Security State overturned: Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala (before the election that we staged), Iran. Our government isn't even truly democtratic. We are a plutocracy, through and through. The Democrats as well as the Republicans help to further entrench the corporate interests into our political landscape.

You wish to blame the left for not protesting US support for Arab totalitarianism. You know what? Keep it up. I'm with you. I'm only 19 so I haven't had too much time to protest in my short period as a leftist. In fact, I wasn't even too politically active before 9/11. But when I saw that my government was going to use this tragedy as a reason to wage a war for oil, I knew I had to do something. You're right that we on the left need to have a bigger presence and speak out on things like Arab totalitarianism. However, we cannot do everything. Right now the most important thing is to stop the war in Iraq. Before 9/11 the left and the peace movement, at least to me, were kind of dying. While 9/11 was indeed horrible, if one good thing came of it, it is that it mobilized the citizenry of this nation and got them thinking about important issues again. We on the left must stop the war in Iraq. Then we must take this momentum and use it to challenge our country's dependence on foreign oil (and our support of Arab dictators--no Arab leader who is pro-US was elected by his people).

But in response to your claim that we on the left have not been doing this already... maybe not enough, but we have. There are many people on the left who want to end our dependenc on oil, not only because of the impact on our foreign policy but also because of the impact on the environment, and the fact that oil is going to run out someday. We didn't get out of the stone age by running out of rocks. We need new ideas. The left (and others, I'm sure) are working on new ideas. But these ideas do not get funded to any substantial degree because oil companies like their little foothold. If there is an alternative to oil, they don't get as much money.

Criticize criticisms of the media all you want, but do it with reasoned arguments. Don't simply discount our criticisms as something that everyone says. Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's "Manufacturing Consent" lays out a very comprehensive propaganda model that is present in the US media. In order to appreciate such a charge, one must first remember what the function of a free press is. NOT to entertain (primarily, at least). NOT to simply reflect the opinions of the monied interests. But rather to stimulate democracy by discussing and editorializing issues that are important to the issues of the day. If there is an injustice that we should be outraged by, how will we know about it unless the media tell us? You should appreciate this, David. Do you think that the US would be the only country in the world whose public supports Israel in the polls if we didn't see all the news reports about "Arab terrorism"?

While a few unwashed Berkeley Marxists and their National Alliance cohorts howl about boycotts and divestment, actual U.S. businesses continue to do hundreds of millions of dollars in business with Israel. So go ahead and post your illiterate hate-filled screeds on Indymedia if it makes you feel better. The real world doesn't give a shit.

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2003/01/06/daily46.html

Telephone services provider SBC Communications has awarded a seven-year outsourcing contract to Israel billing software firm Amdocs Ltd., news agency Reuters reported Friday.

SBC provides local telephone service in Ohio through the company formerly known as Ameritech. Amdocs, which valued the deal at hundreds of millions of dollars, will provide computer systems improvements and maintenance for the SBC directory companies, which publish SBC SMART Yellow Pages in 13 states, including Ohio. Reuters said more than 400 information technology workers at the SBC subsidiaries will be shifted to Amdocs as part of the deal.

San Antonio-based SBC is the nation's second-largest telephone services company.

<You, however, wish to blame everything on the left and you seem to have a very fairy-tale idealistic view of our president and his intentions in Iraq. >

I do not blame everything on the left-- in fact, I try to avoid assigning blame and focus instead on problem-solving. In fact, I secretly hold out hope that the left will succeed in many of the issues it has championed (environment, human rights, etc). Liberalism is not a bad thing-- it is a perspective that adds value (my opinion) and has a place in our social dialogue. Unfortunately, the left has not demonstrated an ability to solve problems, present a vision consistent with Western values or to even offer consistency in how it presents its own purported values. As for Bush, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt even though I didn't vote for him or support the majority of his platform. If he proves to work against my ideals in the areas of freedom and democracy for the Arab people (starting with Iraq), then I will be just as aggressive in attacking Bush as anyone in the left. I will be joined by a great number of people in the right and center as well.

<Democracy is not our goal. Look at history! Look at the "elections" in South Vietnam, El Salvador, Guatemala. And remember all the legitimate, indigenous elections that our National Security State overturned: Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala (before the election that we staged), Iran. Our government isn't even truly democtratic. We are a plutocracy, through and through. The Democrats as well as the Republicans help to further entrench the corporate interests into our political landscape. >

What our government's policy was does not concern me so much as what it will be now and in the future. Sure, our government has a track record of bad policies (segragation, slavery, etc, etc). But we also have a track record of changing our direction (segragation, slavery, etc, etc). 911 proved the effects of not promoting democracy. It demonstrated that there are consequence to our support of totalitarians. As for the rest (Plutocracy, et al)...I feel I'd have to peel away too many layers of leftist identity and rhetoric to address these statement. I apologize for my lack of time.

<You wish to blame the left for not protesting US support for Arab totalitarianism. You know what? Keep it up. I'm with you.>
I appreciate your support.

<I'm with you. I'm only 19 so I haven't had too much time to protest in my short period as a leftist.>

For being 19, you certainly have great communication skills and sense of social responsibility. That fact that I don't agree with your ideology doesn't dimish this fact.

<But when I saw that my government was going to use this tragedy as a reason to wage a war for oil, I knew I had to do something. You're right that we on the left need to have a bigger presence and speak out on things like Arab totalitarianism. However, we cannot do everything. Right now the most important thing is to stop the war in Iraq. >

Can we be honest with each other? Really? The war in Iraq is going to happen. Thousands of troops and tons of military hardware are arriving in the Gulf everyday. The mobilization we are seeing is not a threat of war-- it is a promise. The left will not stop the war in Iraq...just as it could not stop the war in Afghanistan. In fact, we are already at war and have been at war since 911. So far, all that the left has been able to do is project the belief that America is to blame for the acts of totalitarian surrogates and the worlds problems. This may play well in France and Germany or the Mideast-- but it is the recipe for becoming irrelevent in the US. Am I saying that America should not be criticized? No. I am saying that in a period of national crisis convincing people that they are evil and deserve what they get is a flawed strategy. If you combine this with the left's adoption of rhetoric and anti-Semetic propaganda employed by Arab totalitarians (media, ummahs, al Qaida, etc), who are the antipode of American values, beliefs and institutions. This association lessened the political influence of the left in the US (midterm elections) and ultimately hurt those causes it claims to support (anti-war, environment, etc). For most Americans, ensuring that the by-products of totalitarianism do not kill our citizens is the most important thing.

<While 9/11 was indeed horrible, if one good thing came of it, it is that it mobilized the citizenry of this nation and got them thinking about important issues again.. >

Yes, I agree but many Americans, myself included, started thinking about the consequences of our relationships and policy toward totalitarian regimes in the Arab world-- and the need for the US to promote democratic ideals as a way of preventing future attacks, while providing a better life for the Arab people.

<Then we must take this momentum and use it to challenge our country's dependence on foreign oil (and our support of Arab dictators--no Arab leader who is pro-US was elected by his people). >

I'm with you on reducing our dependence on foreign oil and withdrawing our support for totalitarians. Unfortunately, it is difficult for the left to have credibility on this issue when they are protecting Saddam and providing totalitarians in the region with a quasi-intellectual basis for continuing their oppressive regimes. For this reason, there have been certain elements of the right and center which have led this call. Arianna Huffington (certainly not a leftist) has raised millions and is in the process of launching a media campaign to reduce dependence on foreign oil and highlighting the absurdity of supporting totalitarian regimes. Some Republican congressmen and senators have also been out in front on this issue-- along with a handful of Democrats. As for no elected Arab leader being pro-US, that fact is that there are no elected Arab leaders.

<There are many people on the left who want to end our dependenc on oil, not only because of the impact on our foreign policy but also because of the impact on the environment, and the fact that oil is going to run out someday. >

There are many on the other sides of the political spectrum who want the same, as I've outline above.

As for your comments on the media, it is important to know that leftist (or anyone else) can start their own media outlet any time they want. They can also promote any existing media outlet that they want (there are over 3600 print/radio/tv media outlets in the US). With the Internet, Americans can find any point of view that they like from nearly every news source in the world. As for what's the function of the free press, that's entirely up to those who run and own a media outlet. Your arguement would have had much greater validity 30 years ago, when there were only 3 major networks in a highly consolidated industry. Today, however, there are countless sources for information.

<If there is an injustice that we should be outraged by, how will we know about it unless the media tell us? >

What outrages people is a subjective thing-- as is what we deem an injustice. Both are everywhere and in plentiful supply. Even if the media reported everything (which as a totality it does), it would require people to select those events and actions that they deem injustices and outrages in which to focus. This selection is subjective and , therefore, more dependent on the individual than the media as a whole. People who are more concerned with their favorite sports team, entertainer, local issue, business issue or any other issue besides what's important to leftists-- have the right not to expose themselves to perceived injustices and outrage. People are just as free to be uninformed on certain issues as they are to be informed. They are free to interpret events and policies and ideas differently than you or I-- even if their looking for and at the same information. Being uniformed/informed (according to some else's definition) or agreeing/not agreeing (according to someone else's perspective) is the right of all Americans-- as is the right to be lazy, passionate, indifferent, etc.

<Do you think that the US would be the only country in the world whose public supports Israel in the polls if we didn't see all the news reports about "Arab terrorism"?>

You could reverse this question and say "Do you think that the US would be the only country in the world whose public supports Israel in the polls if we other countries were exposed to news reports about 'Arab terrorism'?"

<The war in Iraq is going to happen. Thousands of troops and tons of military hardware are arriving in the Gulf everyday. The mobilization we are seeing is not a threat of war-- it is a promise. The left will not stop the war in Iraq...>

No? See:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html

Yeah, that's a reliable source --definitely non-partisan and objective. Yep, we're building up a huge military force in the Gulf and we, along with our allies, are calling up reserves...just waiting for the "left" to tell them to go home. How could I be so blind to think that the left's sympathy for Saddam (indeed, all totalitarians in the region) and its lack of concern for the future of the Iraqi (and Arab) people-- would not force Bush to back down? I'm glad you freed me of the delusion that America was going to liberate Iraq. I tell ya, when the left sets its mind to saving a tyrant and assuring the Iraqis a continuation of misery-- they're unstoppable! Sure, Iraqi men, women and children might not appreciate being denied their right to life, liberty and self-determination (if they could speak freely they'd tell you so)-- but the left has saved them from those evil American values of democracy and capitalism. That's the important thing, isn't it? We can't have the Middle East adopting democracy and capitalism. Next thing you know, they'll be able to think for themselves, make their own decisions and create a society that adds value to themselves and the world. We just can't have that... If they were to create a decent life for themselves, where would the left find a dictator to offer up "that-a-boy's" or intellectual soul-mates in state-run media? Good job, everyone.

Note: Just in case mike and his impartial news source is wrong, it probably wouldn't be the best time to travel to Baghdad and receive Saddam's special "thank you".

>the left's sympathy for Saddam<

you're simply not going to get away with this charge, daniel.

PROVE IT, OR SHUT UP.

>the left's sympathy for Saddam<

I at first though this was a way too extreme statement, yet the more I think about all the anti-war on rallies I have attended, all the demonstrations, all the protests, about war in Iraq I have seen, or herd one bad thing about Saddam, not even something as simple as a slogan "war is as evil is Saddam". Anyone who is content to ignoring his crimes is underling unofficial sympathy, sort of the same thing as republican parties opinion on Hitler during the early stages of the second world war. Thus the new Stalinist “progressive left" has become as hypocritical as the right wing lunatics that I hate, thus I must now find a new balance between the two. So I will call myself a “blue’ Liberal, but I still can not support many of the anti-war groups, and pretty much anything that has large amounts of anarchists in their ranks.

I agree with this thing here, David. Your charges are so weak, especially when you consider that it was the RIGHT wingers who supported Saddam and provided him with the ability to do all the nasty things that they now charge him with. Bush 1 knew Saddam was a human rights violator before the Gulf War and had no problem with it, even increased the aid to him. Then, when he had a chance, he didn't topple Saddam. There was an opportunity. The left was saying, "Don't fight this war because it is just for oil and you will kill and maim thousands of Iraqis." Bush went to war anyway, killed lots of Iraqis. As long as he was there he should have gotten Saddam. Now again, the left is saying there are alternatives to war. I don't like Saddam, but unless you get the permission of the Iraqi people to kill them in order to get him, I'm not buying this "We're liberating Iraq" rhetoric.

"Collateral damage" is racism. It is Americans deciding that it is okay for Iraqis to die. Would "collateral damage" be acceptable if Iraq were inhabited by Americans, or Israelis? An Iraqi life is equal to an American life is equal to an Israeli life is equal to a Palestinian life. And so on.

this group's been at rallies, and the signers are all the big names, and more, of the progressive left. so you really don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.cpdweb.org/

WE OPPOSE
Both Saddam Hussein
and the U.S. War on Iraq
A call for a new, democratic U.S. foreign policy
We oppose the impending U.S.-led war on Iraq, which threatens to inflict vast suffering and destruction, while exacerbating rather than resolving threats to regional and global peace. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who should be removed from power, both for the good of the Iraqi people and for the security of neighboring countries. However, it is up to the Iraqi people themselves to oust Saddam Hussein, dismantle his police state regime, and democratize their country. People in the United States can be of immense help in this effortnot by supporting military intervention, but by building a strong peace movement and working to ensure that our government pursues a consistently democratic and just foreign policy.

We do not believe that the goal of the approaching war against Iraq is to bring democracy to the Iraqis, nor that it will produce this result. Instead, the Bush Administration’s aim is to expand and solidify U.S. predominance in the Middle East, at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives if necessary. This war is about U.S. political, military and economic power, about seizing control of oilfields and about strengthening the United States as the enforcer of an inhumane global status quo. That is why we are opposed to war against Iraq, whether waged unilaterally by Washington or by the UN Security Council, unaccountable to the UN General Assembly and bullied and bribed into endorsing the war.

The U.S. military may have the ability to destroy Saddam Hussein, but the United States cannot promote democracy in the Muslim world and peace in the Middle East, nor can it deal with the threat posed to all of us by terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda, and by weapons of mass destruction, by pursuing its current policies. Indeed, the U.S. could address these problems only by doing the opposite of what it is doing today that is, by:

Renouncing the use of military intervention to extend and consolidate U.S. imperial power, and withdrawing U.S. troops from the Middle East.
Ending its support for corrupt and authoritarian regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Egypt.
Opposing, and ending U.S. complicity in, all forms of terrorism worldwide not just by Al Qaeda, Palestinian suicide bombers and Chechen hostage takers, but also by Colombian paramilitaries, the Israeli military in the Occupied Territories and Russian counterinsurgency forces in Chechnya.
Ending the cruel sanctions on Iraq, which inflict massive harm on the civilian population.
Supporting the right of national self-determination for all peoples in the Middle East, including the Kurds, Palestinians and Israeli Jews. Ending one-sided support for Israel in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Taking unilateral steps toward renouncing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, and vigorously promoting international disarmament treaties.
Abandoning IMF/World Bank economic policies that bring mass misery to people in large parts of the world. Initiating a major foreign aid program directed at popular rather than corporate needs.
A U.S. government that carried out these policies would be in a position to honestly and consistently foster democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere. It could encourage democratic forces (not unrepresentative cliques, but genuinely popular parties and movements) in Iraq, Iran and Syria, as well as Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey. Some of these forces exist today, others have yet to arise, but all would flower if nurtured by a new U.S. foreign policy.

These initiatives, taken together, would constitute a truly democratic foreign policy. Only such a policy could begin to reverse the mistrust and outright hatred felt by so much of the world’s population toward the U.S. At the same time, it would weaken the power of dictatorships and the appeal of terrorism and reactionary religious fundamentalism. Though nothing the United States can do would decisively undermine these elements right away, over time a new U.S. foreign policy would drastically undercut their power and influence.

The Administration’s frantic and flagrantly dishonest efforts to portray Saddam Hussein as an imminent military threat to people in this country and to the inhabitants of other Middle Eastern countries lack credibility. Saddam Hussein is a killer and serial aggressor who would doubtless like nothing better than to wreak vengeance on the U.S. and to dominate the Gulf Region. But there is no reason to believe he is suicidal or insane. Considerable evidence suggests that Saddam Hussein is much weaker militarily than he was before the Gulf War and that he is still some distance from being able to manufacture nuclear weapons. But most important, unlike Al Qaeda, he has a state and a position of power to protect; he knows that any Iraqi act of aggression now against the U.S. or his neighbors would bring about his total destruction. As even CIA Director George Tenet has pointed out, it is precisely the certainty of a war to the finish against his regime that would provide Saddam Hussein with the incentive he now lacks to use whatever weapons he has against the U.S. and its allies.

Weapons of mass destruction endanger us all and must be eliminated. But a war against Iraq is not the answer. War threatens massive harm to Iraqi civilians, will add to the ranks of terrorists throughout the Muslim world, and will encourage international bullies to pursue further acts of aggression. Everyone is legitimately concerned about terrorism; however, the path to genuine security involves promoting democracy, social justice and respect for the right of self-determination, along with disarmament, weapons-free-zones, and inspections. Of all the countries in the world, the United States possesses by far the most powerful arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. If the U.S. were to initiate a democratic foreign policy and take serious steps toward disarmament, it would be able to encourage global disarmament as well as regional demilitarization in the Middle East.

The Bush Administration has used the alleged Iraqi military danger to justify an alarming new doctrine of preemptive war. In the National Security Strategy, publicly released on September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration asserted that the U.S. has the right to attack any country that might be a potential threat, not merely in response to an act of military aggression. Much of the world sees this doctrine for what it is: the proclamation of an undisguised U.S. global imperium.

Ordinary Iraqis, and people everywhere, need to know that there is another America, made up of those who both recognize the urgent need for democratic change in the Middle East and reject our government’s militaristic and imperial foreign policy. By signing this statement we declare our intention to work for a new democratic U.S. foreign policy. That means helping to rein in the war-makers and building the most powerful antiwar movement possible, and at the same time forging links of solidarity and concrete support for democratic forces in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

We refuse to accept the inevitability of war on Iraq despite the enormous military juggernaut that has been put in place, and we declare our commitment to work with others in this country and abroad to avert it. And if war should start, we will do all in our power to end it immediately.

Add your name to the list of signers

I'll have you know that this Berkeley leftist washes every night!

Investments always seem to go up just before the crash. Heck, Ambassador Helms, the former head of the CIA invested millions in Iranian apartment buildings just before the Shah was kicked out!

$14 Billion in welfare for Israel this year alone! When American can't afford to hire teachers! When class size reductions are out the window. When the American economy is in the toilet.

$14 Billion in American money to support Israeli ethnic cleansing. Americans aren't as stupid as you think.

Viva the left (and good work lefty!)

"As for Bush, ... If he proves to work against my ideals in the areas of freedom and democracy for the Arab people (starting with Iraq), then I will be just as aggressive in attacking Bush as anyone in the left."

Why start with Iraq? Let's look at Afghanistan. Our policy there is a total failure (except for the contract they just signed to build an oil pipeline across Afghanistan to the FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS worth of oil that's up in the Caspian.)

We missed Osama (although he's probably dead), the Taliban are regrouping and there's been a dramatic growth of fundamentalism in Pakistan. The "democratically elected" leader has to have American body guards. Women still wear burkas. American financial assistance has been extremely meager (wouldn't want to slow down the Iraqi war effort).

Bush's motives are completely transparent. He's after the oil. He's not about to entrust all that oil to the fickle finger of democracy. Has nothing to do with why we're massing our troops.

Everywhere there is oil, you will find the United States doing the wrong things -- mainly supporting anti-democratic leaders who are easy for the oil companies to deal with.

***

You almost got me with your reasonable pro-democratic arguments to lefty, because I agree. I have worked with and supported pro-democracy groups from other areas of the Middle East (ex-patriots here mainly, but I have friends who have done as you suggest and paid the price from less safe locations over seas).

I remember how it shocked me to see the look of hatred on the face of a friend who spat out the letters C-I-A when referring to the overthrow of Mossadeq that ended Iran's democracy in 1953 in favor of the Shah.

American foreign policy should put support for democracy at the top of the agenda. Not because it's a nice thing to do, but because the short term gains of rigging an election here, or toppling a government there, ALWAYS backfire in the end.

I said almost, because I think you are really offering up a red hering. I think you are merely toying with us starry-eyed leftists who believe in democracy, but I suspect your real motivation is to divert attention from the issue at hand:

Israel's open-air concentration camps, Israel's ongoing human rights violations, Israel's stonewalling to prevent establishment of a Palestinian State on the 1967 borders, and the current funding request by Israel for $14 Billion dollars to finance their ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

You can fool some of the people all the time...

Viva the left.

p.s.

I agree with Lefty, American "democracy" is more about auctioning off politicians to the highest bidders than it is about deciding policies based on what people want or need.

"yet the more I think about all the anti-war on rallies I have attended, all the demonstrations, all the protests, about war in Iraq I have seen, or herd one bad thing about Saddam"

Look, it's hard on me too without spell check, but "herd?"

***

Actually, I've been to dozens and dozens of anti-war rallies, and at virtually every one somebody at the mic says something like this...

"Saddam Hussein is an evil man and I oppose everything he stands for, but killing thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children isn't the answer."

They did the same kind of thing about Osama. We on the left hate dictators and fundamentalists of all stripes. We believe in democracy, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, the right to strike for a decent wage, etc.

I'll bet at the rally on January 18, where I guarantee there will be tens of thousands of us, you couldn't find a single person who supports Saddam Hussein.

Of course we are against him. He's the kind of guy that uses poison gas on his own people. Does that mean that we want to increase the suffering of the Iraqi people just to let Bush and his oil buddies get their greedy hands on Iraqi oil? NO!

Does that mean that we believe the proper role of the USA is to be the world policeman? No.

We should be strengthening international law. We should prosecute Saddam Hussein in the Hague for war crimes (like we should Kissinger and a growing list of others).

Viva the left!

... a good list of your personal opinions about the "left". but remember, you said it yourself, how you were talking about how you think things are percieved, and not they are.

so how ARE they daniel? what does "how the left is percieved" have to do with the possible invasion of iraq, and whether it is justified or not, or for that matter the israeli occupation of palestine, and whether that is justified or not, and whether american taxpayers should fund it, directly or indirectly?

Czech Republic Bans Neo-Nazi March

Saturday January 11, 2003 8:10 PM


PRAGUE, Czech Republic (AP) - Authorities issued a last-minute ban Saturday of a right-wing extremist group's planned march through Prague's Jewish quarter, an official said.

The decision came after sharp criticism from Jewish groups in the Czech Republic and abroad.

Several dozen right-wing demonstrators who had gathered near the synagogues, the Jewish cemetery and other famous Jewish sites in the capital's historic center disbanded after being told their planned march had been banned, Prague's Mayor Pavel Bem said.

They then marched through other parts of Prague for about half an hour, carrying burning torches in a scene that was reminiscent of Nazi marches in Adolf Hitler's Germany.

``It makes me angry that this can happen in Prague today,'' said Jindra Zeyerova, who looked on.

Nobody was detained, police spokeswoman Daniela Razimova said, and there was no violence.

The organizers of the march said they wanted to demonstrate in the Jewish quarter to commemorate Palestinian victims of the conflict with Israel.

Bem said he called off the march because it would have defamed Jews and their religion.

``I am outraged by any effort of any group to desecrate the memory of the victims of the Holocaust,'' Bem told The Associated Press. He did not say why the decision came so late.

About 150 demonstrators had gathered near the Jewish quarter to prevent the right-wing marchers from entering the neighborhood, but the groups never crossed paths.

Tomas Jelinek, chairman of Prague's Jewish Community, said his group welcomed the decision but would have preferred it to come much earlier.

The march would have been ``something the Jewish part of the city has not experienced since the Nazi occupation during the World War II,'' he said. ``It reminds me of the anti-Jewish marches in the 1930s.''

The Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a statement it was outraged by the authorities' initial decision to permit the march.

About 3,500 Jews live in the Czech Republic, about 1,500 of them in Prague. Before World War II, the country was home to 120,000 Jews. Some 80,000 perished in death camps, while thousands of others died afterward or emigrated.

First of all, are you doing a satire of an argument? I don't get it.

"(I would define mainstream American in the following ways: (1) Really Likes Capitalism, (2) Has a Fondness for Free Market Democracy and (3) Appreciates Practical Results and Solutions.) "

I didn't get much past this, in fact I couldn't quite follow it this far, but I object to your definition right from the start.

(1) Do American's really like Capitalism? Capitalism is sort of like the game of monopoly where one player ends up with everything and all the other players go bankrupt. What we have in America is a modified form of capitalism which has many features of socialism built in.

We get social security and medicare in our old age. We have unemployment benefits if we get laid off, and workman's comp if we are hurt. The government (occasionally) prosecutes capitalists who violate socialistic rules about monopolies or insider trading. The public money is used to guarantee bank holdings so people aren't wiped out when capitalists blow it.

I'm not an economist, but what we have here certainly isn't pure capitalism, and if you asked the American people, many of them wouldn't care for capitalism at all if it didn't come with the socialist features that make it more worker friendly.

(2) This one really gets me -- "free market democracy." What the hell does choosing between Crest or Colgate have to do with democracy? To mix economic and governmental functions as if they were two sides of the same coin or something is nuts. The American people support democracy (as if we have very much of it, but that's another argument), and they basically support the ostensible freedom of choice represented by a "free market." But the two are not linked in the minds of the American people, nor in reality.

Our free market is not free. It is full of corruption. If a big company makes a profit, it is free to share it with shareholders (or to line the pockets of the CEO ala ENRON), but if the company has problems, like the airline industry is currently having, the public bails them out. That's called public risk and private profit, and that is the essence of the modern "free market."

What is really free is not the market, but the capital. Capital is free to flow wherever labor rates are lowest. Labor is not free to flow wherever labor rates are highest. Capital is protected while workers are victimized in a global rush to the bottom. Is it any surprise the China is the world's leading "capitalist" country these days, since the people are essentially powerless industrial serfs.

Free Market my ass.

(3) Appreciates practical results -- sure who doesn't.

Except that the American people are fed a pack of lies about what is effective and what isn't. Did Bush's Afghanistan adventure have any practical results?

Ok, Osama is on the run or dead, and Bush got his oil pipeline to $4 TRILLION in Caspian Sea oil, but what did he really accomplish in his "War on Terrorism?"

Terrorism will continue as long as American foreign policy is dictated by the short-term profit motives of American corporations. When we devise an enlightened foreign policy that balances other interests, such as the human rights and democratic rights of the people where our corporations operate, then we will make strides against Terrorism.

Yet, because Americans get so much of their information from Corporate Media, they don't have a clue how ineffective and impractical our government's policies are.

You want a practical approach to stopping terrorism? Take every penny we waste on "defense" and fly over all the countries where we have "enemies" and drop the money.

Guaranteed results, but hey all those "defense" industries (read -- weapons profiteers) would go out of business -- boo hoo.

Viva the left!

Mahmood my ass.

This posting is pure propaganda -- equating our marches for Palestinian rights with neo-Nazis.

The left has always been anti-Fascist. And you won't find any neo-Nazis in our marches. They are the ones jeering on the sidelines and flipping us off.

Piss on your propaganda "Mahmood" or whoever you really are that's using a Muslim name to sheep dip your zionist propaganda.

If you read the article, it is the marchers themselves who claim to be supporting Palestinians. The piece offends you becuase you see yourself - a Jew-hater who uses the Palestinian people to justify your hatred.

Neo-Nazis may be pro-Palestinian, but being pro-Palestinian does not make us neo-Nazis or "Jew-haters" as you so ignorantly put it.

Israel is begging for $14 BILLION in American money to help push Palestinians off their land. Since Israeli ethnic cleansing is being financed by BILLIONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of American dollars every year, I think we Americans have some responsibility to try to protect Palestinian rights.

Let the Palestinians have Palestine on the 1967 borders. Is that asking too much "Mahmood."

Viva the progressive, anti-Fascist, anti-racist left!

It's called an Error of Composition.

See:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/compos.htm

Do you think "Mahmood" will follow the link?

Where does a person go to see Swastikas being displayed in the US? You could find David Duke's headquarters in some Louisiana swamp - or you can go to a "leftist" anti-israel march. The left's obsession with Jews is not going to hurt Israel one bit - however it will tear the left apart. Go to Rainbow Coop if you don't believe me.

You can dismiss us "Mahmood" but our numbers grow every day. Israel is the world's greatest skofflaw, in spite of what zionists would have everyone believe, and if Americans really knew how the Palestinians are treated by the IDF, there would be total outrage in America.

The Mainstream Media only shows us victims of suicide bombings (which of course nobody supports), but if they showed us pictures of the checkpoints where old women are humiliated day in and day out, if they showed us the damage being done with Caterpillar tractors, if they showed us the horrified faces of 12-year-old boys being shot with live ammunition, or settlers taunting children into the open where they can shoot them from the safety of fortified illegal settlements...

If our media showed us the real story, support for Israel would dry up over night.

I had a Republican in my class the other day and we went round and round until I got to the issue of giving $14 BILLION to Israel. He said "no way -- America shouldn't be giving Israel any money."

Viva the progressive, anti-racist left.

Viva Palestinian statehood and Palestinian civil rights.

Hahahahahahahaha - I bet you're expecting the people of America to rise up and join the Bezerkely left in "revolution" as well. While you're waiting, you can read about how in the real world, businesses are signing multi-million dollar contracts with Israeli companies. Or you can go down to the Rainbow Coop and buy some delicious Israeli products.

Amdocs lands SBC contract

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2003/01/06/daily46.html

Telephone services provider SBC Communications has awarded a seven-year outsourcing contract to Israel billing software firm Amdocs Ltd., news agency Reuters reported Friday.

SBC provides local telephone service in Ohio through the company formerly known as Ameritech.

Amdocs, which valued the deal at hundreds of millions of dollars, will provide computer systems improvements and maintenance for the SBC directory companies, which publish SBC SMART Yellow Pages in 13 states, including Ohio.

Reuters said more than 400 information technology workers at the SBC subsidiaries will be shifted to Amdocs as part of the deal.

An SBC spokesman said the alliance will help the company streamline operations, reduce costs and enhance service.

San Antonio-based SBC is the nation's second-largest telephone services company.

Good article, Mahmood, peace be upon you. Keep it up !

Maybe we can turn a little heat on when companies profit by doing business with racist countries like Israel.

Perhaps one of us (with more energy than I feel at the moment) will read your boastful little story about SBC hiring an Israeli contractor for their billing services and start a picket.

There are lots of American firms that have no ethics when it comes to doing business with skofflaw countries. Look at all the companies that stuck it out in Apartheid South Africa?

I don't know why I keep seeing this one posting about SBC when Microsoft, Intel, Raytheon, and just about everybody else are doing business with Israel.

So what.

How does that change the fact that Israel has to come around with a tin cup like a beggar asking for a handout, except this beggar wants weapons and money worth $14 BILLION this year alone!

How does that change the fact that Israeli settlers are bound and determined to push all the Palestinians off their land?

How does that change the fact that Israeli checkpoints, Israeli curfews, Israeli torture, Israeli collective punishment are all going on every day against innocent Palestinian civilians?

How does that change the fact that Israel has violated more UN resolutions than Iraq and many other countries combined?

How does that change the fact that Israel continues to illegally occupy Palestinian land, and illegally take Palestinian water, and illegally bulldoze Palestinian orchards and homes?

Why don't you tell me about Rainbow Grocery again, it's such a persuasive argument.

Viva the progressive left.

Viva Palestinian Statehood and Palestinian civil rights.

Lest the uninitiated not see the truth, "Mahmood" and "Abdulah" are zionist propagandists.

I guess when you don't have any real arguments, you resort to ruses.

Lest the uninitiated not see the truth, "Less is More" is a Jew-hating bigot. I guess when you don't have any real arguments, you report the same lies over and over again.

"Mahmood," "Abdulah," "Tariq and "Less is More" could easily be the same person.

"Mahmood," "Abdulah," "Tariq and "Less is More" “happens a lot “ could easily be the same person

less is more, less is really more, less is actually more, and less is clearly more are the same person, but those others parading around with arab names are not less is more.

Less is more is not a racist of any sort.

The people filled with hate for Palestinians are the ones who accuse others of hating Jews, but just because we disagree with you, disagree with the idea that Palestinians should pay the ultimate price for European anti-Semitism, does not make us "Jew-hating biggots."

You think that by labeling someone who doesn't agree with you you can just dismiss the legitimacy of their arguments?

It is a foolish notion.

Viva the progressive, anti-racist, anti-Fascist left.

Let's stop the $14 BILLION handout to Israel!

No, I disagree. less is more, less is really more, less is actually more, and less is clearly more are actually two people, the first of whom is also Tariq, Mahmood and Mike. The second person also goes by the names PeaceMan, PeaceMonger and PeaceOfShit. I know because I'm Tariq.

You're not even Mahmood.

These guys are probably on Mossad payroll sitting in a little cubical in a cinderblock office, with nothing to do but use Arab names to spread zionist propaganda.

"Less is more" was me (just as a comment about long winded people who don't say much), but now this nutcase is using it too to spread confusion about who is saying what.

Here's the deal. Know the real "less is more" by my pro-Palestinian, pro-left, anti-racist messages. When they start posting zionist stories using my name, its an Israeli disinformation operation.

Viva what's left of the left.

Viva civil rights and human rights for everybody, including Palestinians caught under the boot of Israeli occupation.

Viva!

Everyone who disagrees with me only does so because they are controlled by powerful rich foreign racist Jews. Viva the left.

Well “Less is More” …
Your arguments are as logic as your name suggest you are…
You wrote:
You know Moshe, maybe you should spend a little vacation in the Occupied Territories. Go there and see what the IDF has done to the lives of Palestinians. I guarantee you that if you spent 2 weeks living with the Palestinians, your whole view of the conflict would change. “

As a matter of fact, I did visit the occupied territories, many times. What travel agency I used for these visit?
The IDF, it is a very punctual agency get you exactly were you want to be and always on time.

Many American service men are visiting the IDF. The usually come to asses problems as well as to study some of the techniques and weapons used by the IDF in its war against terror.

The relations between the two Armies are close in ways you cannot even imagine.

Asserting that the Israelis “GET” and the Americans “GIVE” is so far from the truth, that it can be simply called a lie.

Our own engineers can not recognize the tools given to the IDF a short time after it was given to the Israeli engineers for the implementation of changes required by the army according to Specification requests documents.
I specifically can recall the story of an Israeli F-4 Phantom fighter jet that was deserted above Lebanon, after a malfunctioned engine. The IAF first sent a rescue team to evacuate the two crew members and soon after a squadron of F-15’s to bomb the area, in order to destroy the remaining of the jet. The Jet was destroyed along with 2 Russian engineers that were hurried to the scene in order to check the site.

This got the extra attention of our USAF, who was already curious about some pieces of knowledge of the new F-4 jets built in IAI (Israeli Aircraft Industries), that took a major role in the destruction, within a few hours, of the entire Syrian air defense above Lebanon, after the Syrians have made the mistake and stationed SA2 surface to air missiles, that threatened all air traffic above Israel itself. Usually as it happened the Israelis would invite us the Americans, to see their creations, only after it has been field tested, this time in the midst of combat they were hesitant, so we invited ourselves.

I cannot describe the faces of the engineers and pilots that visited and flew the “new” Jet.
Many of the developments used by the IDF in this plane are being used by USAF and the NAVY in their fleet of Jets, and are being used as the basics for new improvements; these new electronic warfare, and safety gadgets, have saved the lives of many American servicemen throughout the years.

The relations between the IDF and the US was always bi-directional, the amount of information and help, we giant America received from this tiny country can not be weighed and valued in regular measuring tools or with numbers that represent US tax payer’s $. The American made M1A1/2 Tank was improved by things we were able to check when visiting T-72 Tank captured by the Israelis in Lebanon. American surface to air missiles capabilities were greatly improved by Israeli scientists, and our IT defense mechanism and tools were completely redesigned by a few Israeli companies as well.

My last visit to Israel was to see from a close range the amazing high-tech industries created there. The developments in these new startups sometimes have military implications and we monitor them closely.

Israel is the only ally in the ME on which the US can rely. The relations formed through out the past 30 years have proved themselves time and again. No matter what you left-wingers say in this board, it is a vibrant democracy, with western values. These values were and are the only reason that the so-called “Palestinian Problem” still exists, otherwise the problem would have ceased to exist years ago.

The Arabs as well as the Palestinians have refused to any compromise offered and preferred fighting. Because of their inability to fight like men they have terrorized the Israeli civilian population in the past 100 years with numerous attacks. They have missed calculated the western habits and freedom in the Israeli society for weakness and signs of decay (just as the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities did) that will soon cause for a breakdown and would bring them the Victory over the infidels. They were wrong as they are now, the Israelis though tired of fighting and longing for peaceful existence are as strong as ever, and in fact the last two years have made them even stronger.

The famous Ghetto phenomena has made them difficult for any future compromise, they are suspicious of the Palestinians, the Arabs the European left and even to radical left wingers Americans as you.
But, hey, Arafat and his gang have honestly earned Sharon and deserve his hard line views.

Now, this corrupt Palestinian leader have one choice, get the hell out of there, and let your people try and elect a new honest leaders.
Even the beloved Europeans are now saying this out loud, Arafat is out, his role has been finished, he refused to seize the moment and grasp the offer put forward by President Clinton, he is History, bye…


You seem to like this “progressive left” title you have given yourself…
As I said, “ just criticizing others from a non existent higher moral grounds”…

Thinking highly of yourself and a few selective others.
It doesn’t happen to me that often, but your insistence on the Progressive makes me laugh, it is pathetic.

Regarding the 14 Billion:
1. Relax it is only a loan guarantee and therefore it will not come from your tax money.
2. Israel as been always thought of by the US as a bridgehead to the Middle east, a country that will always be on our side (assuming that we are on the same American side), even when the Brits are hesitating the Israelis are there.
3. When supporting the Israelis we always know where the money goes to, something that is not true in any of the, so called, countries that surround Israel (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and of course the notorious Palestinian Authority of the one and only, the man with the facial hair, his excellency, the General (never actually combated troops, only armed militia groups against civilians) Yassir Arafat.
4. The money Israel is asking for, should enable it to pay the big bills created as a result of the American war on Iraq. This war in which Israel will be a sure target, and in which Israelis are expected and demanded, by the Bush Administration not to interfere with (even after being attacked). This time it is again the other way around, Israel will be targeted again for being an ally to the US and not the other way around, as you self righteous lefties like to portray the relations between the two countries.
5. The foreign aid to Israel is a good investment, certainly comparing to all other countries in its region.

And to you Lefty that thinks that:
“totalitarianism in the Arab world is unfortunate and a problem”

That is such an understatement, unfortunate, it is bad, evil, deploring etc etc. It is everything but unfortunate, it has nothing to do with luck, for sure with fortune, the fortune that western democracies have earned as a direct result of these regimes, the money that made these democracies create and support these regimes.
This is the only reason the French and Russians would like to avoid the war, they couldn’t care less about the dead Iraqis, they are only interested it the oil contracts.

But of course you in the “progressive left” who is known for the love of the near Americans and their hate for all the European sophistication…
Of course you prefer to think the opposite, you prefer to think that it is the French and Russians which are occupied with the well being of Iraq and the Arabs and we the Americans are the evils that are after the oil money. Why cause you are “progressive left” as the French with their nice accent and the Russians are progressive…

And I say again, come down to us normal Americans, start loving your country, as much as you… think highly of your… moral values (good laugh), and stop glorifying yourself and demonize the others this will be a true sign of progress.

“How does that change the fact that Israel has violated more UN resolutions than Iraq and many other countries combined? “
That SBC contract definitely does not change this fact.
But the truth of the matter is that the UN is a biased organization and is strictly anti Israel. Moreover it is obsessed as you and some others on this board with the state of Israel. And therefore your remark that Israel violated more UN resolutions than Iraq and many other countries combined (should be checked) is irrelevant.
“Illegally occupy Palestinian land, and illegally take Palestinian water, and illegally bulldoze Palestinian orchards and homes?”
As a rule of thumb I would not apply the UN as the measuring tool for the legality of the above mentioned.
Israel is occupying some land in the west bank and the Gaza strip, however these lands were never Palestinians in the first place therefore the regular rules that sometimes apply in war are hard to implement in this situation, for there is a question of to whom should these lands be returned.
I can assure you my not friend that as “progressive” as you and your European left might be you are not the first and the only ones to contemplate the problem, as a matter of fact the Israelis have this right. You should know (or you should try to forget) that right after the occupation of these territories in the 6 days war of 1967, Israel has offered to give these territories back, to whom? To either the Jordanians or to a local Palestinian leadership.
Why it never really happened, the answer was supplied by the Arab league in Khartoum in August 1967 Immediately after the 6 day war,
the league in its meeting in Khartoum issued an absolute rejection of Israel’s right to exist and of its offer of peace (as was put forward by Mr. Moshe Dayan). The resolution of this summit is more known as the formula of three noes: "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel...."
As you can see, or clearly not, your beloved friends, once more, refused to take responsibility over their lives and create their own country.

“Why I keep seeing this one posting about SBC when Microsoft, Intel, Raytheon, and just about everybody else are doing business with Israel”
This is true; the Israeli economy of the last decade and its high-tech industry is a true wonder. Some of my friends that occasionally travel to Europe and the US, can tell you a lot of how much the economy longs for peace and quite.
It amazes me that you in the “progressive” left are unable to see who is grasping normality with his nails and last strength and who is alive and kicking whenever there is a mess and chaos.
The Palestinian and Arab leaders are so happy that there is someone to blame.
Why is it that Arafat would like to bother with building a new state, taking care of education, building and the well being of Palestinians, when he can keep the billions to himself and the people close to him, blame the Israelis and remain a hero?
What business and knowledge does he have with all of this nation building, all he knows is being an outlaw, a nowhere men that hangs out with European “Progressive” left wingers and kings…

out there somewhere...

- - - - -

- 1. please demonstrate in a specific and factual way how israel's occupation of palestine has been a resounding success, leading to years of peace, prosperity, and security for israel. please show how it has led to less terrorism, and a safer israel. please demonstrate how it has increased israel's security and respect in the larger context of the entire middle east and the world. please lay out a detailed framework showing how the continued occupation of palestine will lead to an increasingly secure and bright future for the people of israel.

- 2. please demonstrate in a specific and factual way how palestinian militant suicide bombings have been a resounding success, leading to years of freedom, peace and prosperity for palestine. please show how it has led to less occupation, and a freer palestine. please demonstrate how it has increased palestine's freedom and standing in the larger context of the entire middle east and the world. please lay out a detailed framework showing how the continued suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism against israeli civilians will lead to an increasingly free and bright future for the people of palestine.

- - - - -

thanks and good luck.

Argentine politician tests a provision

By Los Angeles Times, 1/12/2003

AN MIGUEL DE TUCUMAN, Argentina - Jose Alperovich has the credentials to become the next governor of the province of Tucuman. He is a federal senator, rising star in the ruling Peronist party, and protege to the current governor.



He also is Jewish. And that, a number of prominent voices here say, disqualifies him from becoming Tucuman's chief executive under Article 80 of the provincial constitution, which requires the governor to take a Christian oath.

''I never thought, in the 21st century, we'd see something like this,'' said Alperovich, who leads most polls here ahead of elections expected in March or April. He is challenging Article 80 in the provincial Supreme Court. ''It doesn't make any sense that I can be president, that I'm already a senator, but that I can't be governor.''

Article 80 says the governor must swear fealty to ''God, the Fatherland and the Christian saints.'' Monsignor Luis Villalba, Tucuman's Roman Catholic archbishop, launched the controversy just before Christmas when he said the constitutional provision means the governor must be Catholic.

''We have to start respecting the law,'' Villalba said on a local television program. ''We must follow the constitution to the last detail. Our country is falling apart because no one follows or respects the law.''

Article 80 is no relic of a distant era in Argentine history. It was written in 1990, when the provincial government was dominated by retired army General Antonio Bussi, a right-wing politician and key figure in Argentina's ''dirty war'' against government opponents in the 1970s and '80s.

Bussi was de facto governor of Tucuman during the years of Argentina's dictatorship. He was elected governor by popular vote in 1995 and continued to mold the province to his Catholic vision. He redesigned the provincial flag - it became a large white crucifix on a blue field. Then he drafted a law that obliged all public and private schools - including this city's Jewish school - to raise the new flag each day. Since 1999, Bussi has faced an international arrest warrant issued by Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon - who previously went after former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet - on charges of ''terrorism, genocide, and torture'' during the dictatorship.

Bussi has not commented on the current controversy. But the men and women who wrote the constitution with him a decade ago have stepped forward to defend Villalba's statements.

''We put in the requirement that the executive must take this oath because no one can deny that Tucuman is made up of a Catholic majority of 99.5 percent,'' said Julio Cesar lvarez Suriani, president of the 1990 provincial Constitutional Convention.

For many in Argentina's 200,000-member Jewish community, the controversy is just another in a long line of incidents with anti-Semitic overtones in a traditionally Catholic country, where many people are not yet comfortable with a cosmopolitan society.

''In Argentina, people don't take these kinds of statements seriously yet,'' said Sergio Widder, Buenos Aires representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. ''They don't realize that intolerance is incompatible with living in a democracy.''

In Tucuman province, one of the most impoverished corners of Argentina's desolate north, it is not uncommon for a social club to exclude Jews or for the local Jewish cemetery to be desecrated, said Simon Litvak, president of the United Israel Society of Tucuman.

And now, the debate over Alperovich's candidacy is bringing a new wave of anti-Semitism to the airwaves and newspapers, he said. ''Sometimes I feel I'm living in a Nazi country.''

One columnist accused Alperovich of ''wanting to tear down [Tucuman's] cathedral and replace it with a synagogue.'' Pablo Calvetti, leader of Bussi's Republican Force party, said of the court challenge to Article 80: ''If we keep going this way, we'll allow even the insane to become governor.''

Alperovich, 47, is the grandson of Lithuanian immigrants who fled the violence of World War II. A successful businessman, he drifted to politics in the mid-1990s and was economy minister in the provincial government before becoming a senator.

This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 1/12/2003.

- - - - -

PLEASE NOTE: there are certain time constraints to this exercise. they are as follows:

- A. at that time in which every last living israeli has been killed or ethnically cleansed.

- B. at that time in which every last living palestinian has been killed or ethnically cleansed.

- C. upon the outbreak of WWIII. this war will begin in the middle east. it may very well involve either two of these powers, or all the three: the arab nations, israel and the united states of america. despite the best efforts of the U.N. to fight the flames, the united states of america will withdraw unilaterally from the U.N., destroying that organization's credibility, and the notion of the international rule of law along with it. the war, fueled by a never ending supply of money, arms, religious hatred and cultural animosity, will spread like wildfire eastward to pakistan and india, and eventually to all of asia. the united stats of america will immediately begin to take up postions throughout the world, in a unilateral "grab what we can now" strategy. eventually, all the major powers will be drawn into the conflict. they will fight each other to determine who gets what now that all rules and prior geo-political power arrangements have become meaningless.

upon any or all of these points A, B, and/or C being met, the applicant's time will essentially be over.

- - - - -

"The relations between the two Armies are close in ways you cannot even imagine. "

Of course I can imagine, I come from San Francisco.

"Israel as been always thought of by the US as a bridgehead to the Middle east, a country that will always be on our side"

Not on my side pal. My side is the side of justice, not the side of people who have to go everywhere carrying weapons. And as I remember, we had to beg our "bridgehead" not to even "help" us because we were afraid it would destroy our coalition.

"But the truth of the matter is that the UN is a biased organization and is strictly anti Israel"

You know I'm noticing a little pattern here -- everybody who doesn't agree with you is biased. Have you ever considered the posibility that it is you that are biased?

Let me ask you straight, do you hate Arabs? Do you hate Palestinians? Do you mourn an innocent Jewish victim more than an innocent Palestinian victim? Do you mourn an innocent Palestinian victim at all?

What I said about visiting the occupied territories was not a joke. Take off the uniform, put down the gun, and go to the occupied territories to help a Palestinian pick olives. Help a Palestinian family rebuild a water cistern. Live with the Palestinians, as their guest for two weeks and it will change your life.

Get in touch with MECA (Middle Eastern Children's Alliance) at:

http://www.mecaforpeace.org/

MECA is run by Barbara Lubin, a most wonderful Jewish woman. Get ahold of her, tell her who you are, and that you want to see what it is like from a Palestinian perspective.

You can tell her that you hate Palestinians even, but tell her that you just want to see. She will understand and she will help you see the situation in a whole new way.

It will change your life, I guarantee it or your money back.

Viva the human heart. Viva love. Viva the left.

I notice so much emphasis being placed on anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and general hatred of America and Jews. Get over it! People talk about the left as if we are a bunch of conspiracy theorists, yet go on about how the entire UN is just out to make life miserable for Americans and Jews. You don't stop to think that the GOVERNMENT of American and the GOVERNMENT of Israel make life miserable for many other people in the world. It's a classic case of turning the victimizer into the victim.

Now, I am not saying that there are no people with hostile intentions toward Americans and Jews. There clearly are, and we should think of ways to deal with these people. But we should not let this blind us to our own aggression and the consequences of our own action. If we are to judge others based on their aggression and hostility, we should evaluate ourselves based on OUR aggression and hostility. Plain and simple. Because if you don't, you get a very skewed image of the world: one in which we are perfect and "they" are irrational monsters who for some strange reason just don't like us. This is not healthy. This is definitely not democracy.

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution says that all people should be treated equally under the law. Although this Amendment's biggest contribution to our society was to be the basis for the court ruling that corporations are people and should therefore be given the rights of people. Immortal, disgustingly rich people.

Back to the people. Back to the people. That's my mantra today. Stop confusing our criticisms of the government with criticisms of the people. Israel is referred to by its apologists as the only democracy in the Middle East. It is not anti-Semitism that causes me to disagree. I happen to find America's democracy extremely lacking too, and I know I'm not anti-me.

It would appear that there a great deal of Israel bashing on this site - however, if you look more closely, it is ONLY ONE person making these comments. He calls himself a hundred different names, including Wendy Campbell, but gives himself away by selectively capitalizing random words in his long anti-Israel screeds. Real leftist support gay rights, womens rights, workers rights, democracy, free speech, free religion, free press and a liberal society - that why they support Israel. This troll should take his jewish-media, jewish-power conspiracies to the whitepower sites where they belong.

And the proof of this is?

"It would appear that there a great deal of Israel bashing on this site - however, if you look more closely, it is ONLY ONE person making these comments."

I don't think this is quite the case -- there are many people posting on both sides of the issue here. However, I think you're right that an _awful lot_ of the most stridently anti-Israel stuff, a big chunk of it every day, is coming from one particular person posting under many names but unable to change writing style enough to disguise it -- and always pointing to the same three or four URLs (Cactus48, and the NeturaiKarta sites) as well.

@%<

I'm not sure if that Wendy fellow was referring to me but if you will notice, the capitalized words in my posting were not "random" but in places where I wanted to emphasize a word. I would have used italics, but I don't know how.

That said, this is the only discussion I have ever posted to on indy. I just started on Friday I believe.

"Real leftist support gay rights, womens rights, workers rights, democracy, free speech, free religion, free press and a liberal society - that why they support Israel."

It is correct that real leftists support all of those things. But it is a logical fallacy to say that because of this, leftists support Israel. I am not debating whether or not those things exist in Israel. They exist to some extent in the US, but I do not fully support the US government either. The reason is that the degree to which a society is free and democratic seems to have no correlation to its foreign policy. Stalin killed people in his own country. That was unconscionable. But to say that the US was miles ahead because the level of freedom within our borders was tremendously better ignores the fact that while the US government was not allowing death squads and police state violence at home, it was supporting such violence and terror in places like Guatemala and El Salvador, among others.

Americans live free and happy lives (comparatively), while people in the third world are killed, tortured, raped, and terrorized in all sorts of ways. Are we to assume that democracy cannot exist in one country unless there is a void of democracy in another? Or will we listen to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

No, simply having a democratically structured society does not make a country a leftist's ideal.

Lefty says "Israel is referred to by its apologists as the only democracy in the Middle East. It is not anti-Semitism that causes me to disagree." Perhaps you would like to explain why you disagree - where else in the middle east do multiple political parties vie in a free and fair election for control of the country. Where else is the rule of law in force? Read here about how the Israeli prime minister was forced off of Israeli TV for violating elections laws:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=251276&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Read here how the Israeli Supreme Court overturned a commitees' decision to bar two Arab candidates:

http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030109230804967

Please name me another middle eastern country that has a Supreme Court that overturns decisions of political beaurocrats. Or that has elections laws that even the prime minister must obey.

Lefty - what country do you see as a worthy example for the rest of the world to emulate?

Bill, I did not offer an opinion about the internal democratic structures and systems within the state of Israel. Thank you for the news clips, but if you had paid attention to the rest of my posting and not just the part you quoted, your question should have already been answered. My belief is a "democracy" should act democratically at home AND abroad.

Howard Zinn said recently, after explaining that war in the last century has increasingly become war against civilians, that if we as Americans truly believe that "all men (women, etc) are created equal" then we cannot go to war against Iraq. Democracy, by definition, values human life. War, especially war on civilians, is not democratic.

Back to the people. Back to the people.

PeaceMan: I do not know of a country that lives up to the ideal explained above. America is my home, and I will do what I can to make it better. The Earth is my home, and I will do what I can to make my existence as an American not dependent on the suffering of my brothers and sisters around the world.

Lefty - A utopian pacifist citizen of earth - I say college freshmen, maybe sophomore. Enjoy your innocence.

"Lefty - A utopian pacifist citizen of earth"

Righty - A dystopian aggressive destroyer of earth

First, I would just like to apologize to Bill: I did not look at the time that you posted your question to me. It was posted 6 minutes after I addressed the question that you were asking, so you probably hadn't read it yet. Sorry for the miscommunication.

I just have a few reflections on anti-Semitism and racism in general to get out. First of all, we should all remember that Arabs are Semitic people as well. It is possible to be anti-Semitic toward Arabs. Please don't say that this is just a matter of semantics (the right to say that should only be reserved for those who have sat through the tedium of a semantics class... ugh). It is a matter of Semitics.

The reason I bring this up is because the word anti-Semitism arouses in me very negative feelings, as it should, because it is used to refer to a type of racism. Also, it conjures up images of the Holocaust and people like Hitler. Unconscionable.

However, whenever I hear the term anti-Arab (which is almost never), it doesn't carry the same sting with it. Why is that? I am just as opposed to prejudice and hatred targetted at Arabs as I am to prejudice and hatred targetted at Jews. It seems to me that "anti-Arab" is taken more to be a political term than a racial term. Being anti-Arab doesn't make someone a bigot, it just makes them politically opposed to, say, Arab totalitarianism or to "backwards" Arab societies.

Being anti-Semitic, however, is viewed as being bigotted. So much so, that it seems that people are not allowed to be politically opposed to anything that has to do with Jewish people. If I am anti-Israel, it means that I am anti-Semitic. If I am anti-Iraq or anti-Palestine, then it means that I am rational, Western, pro-democratic, politically acceptable.

This is a double standard. Which is why I wish people would either not use the term anti-Semitic, or use it for both groups. Essentially, people should realize that being politically opposed to the Israeli government is not the same as being anti-Jewish, although the two can co-occur. Also, people should be much more aware of the widespread real racism that is targetted against Arabs, but still realize that being politically opposed to an Arab state does not necessarily make one racist against Arabs.

Now I would like to mention one other form of racism. I believe it has occurred on this discussion targetting Arabs and I know it has occurred on this discussion targetting Jews. This form of racism is the use of someone's race--the exploitation of someone's race--for political means. I cannot prove that "Mahmood" and "Abdullah" were not really a couple of Zionist Arabs, but it was highly suspect that all of a sudden there were two Arab names, one insinuating that being pro-Palestinian was equal to being a neo-Nazi, and the other commending the first. If they were not truly Arabs, then shame on whoever posted those messages, for they were manipulative and racist.

The other incident of this exploitative racism, targetted at Jews, is much more widespread on this discussion. It is displayed by all those who constantly say that being politically opposed to the state of Israel are anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish). There are many Jews who oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, many Jews who deplore Sharon as much as I deplore Bush, many Jews who recognize the humanity of the Palestinian people. By equating political opposition to Israeli government policies with anti-Jewish racism, these Zionist zealots are stripping these other Jews of their right to not have their racial and religious heritage used for another's political, manipulative ends.

"First of all, we should all remember that Arabs are Semitic people as well." When I see a discussion on Jew-hatred start in this manner I stop reading. Please read this and understand why your comment is both ignorant and offensive:

The Skinny on 'Semitism'
Can one be anti-Israel without being antisemitic? Lately, this question has been cropping up more and more — in the media, in public exchanges and in many a private conversation. It calls for serious thought, the first task of which is to disentangle it from its terminology.

Antisemitism is indeed not only an unfortunate phenomenon, but by universal admission an unfortunate term. Its origins are clearly documented. It was coined in 1879 by the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, the author of a book called "The Victory of Judaism Over Germanism." In that year Marr, in step with the swelling tide of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany, founded his Bund der Antisemiten or "Antisemitic League." The term caught on immediately. In 1881 an "Antisemitic Petition" bearing 225,000 signatures was presented to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, and by 1882 there was an official "Anti-Semitic Party" in Germany that won several seats in the Reichstag.

Why did the German word Antisemitismus so quickly replace the older Judenfeindschaft, or "Jew-hatred," and spread to other European languages as well? The answer lies in the growing propagation in late-19th-century Europe of a pseudo-Darwinian racial ideology that, dividing the world's population into various "biologically" definable groups of which the "Aryan" was deemed the most advanced and fittest to survive, relegated Jews and blacks to the bottom of the ladder. The problem was, however, that Jews could not be "scientifically" considered a separate race in themselves. After all, they originally came from the Middle East, where, like all other Middle Easterners, to whom they bore many resemblances, they had spoken a Semitic language — in their case, Hebrew. "Racially," therefore, they had to be considered "Semites," thus making anyone who opposed them or considered them inferior on racial rather than strictly religious grounds an "anti-Semite."

That this word is nonsensical has often been observed, not only by physical anthropologists who point out that there is no such thing as a "Semitic" (or, for that matter, "Aryan") race, the inhabitants of the Middle East being a mixture of many different racial stocks, but also by the Arab world, which has argued rather disingenuously that, since it is "Semitic" itself, it cannot possibly be "anti-Semitic." For this reason, some writers and publications, including the Forward, have preferred to spell the word as "antisemitism." As the Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer has put it:

"Anti-Semitism" is altogether an absurd construction, since there is no such thing as 'Semitism' to which it might be opposed. In German... there is no hyphen, and the word has no precise meaning, although its connotations are well understood.

And if "antisemitism" is a confusing way of referring to a hater of Jews, "Israel" can be an ambiguous way of referring to a Jewish state. This is not only because, historically, "Israel" both is and is not a recognized name for the Jewish people (various Christian groups in the past and present have also thought of themselves as "Israel"), but also because, in today's usage, "Israeli" can mean either a specifically Jewish citizen of Israel or any citizen of Israel at all. For example, in the sentence "Israelis should make peace with the Palestinians," it is clear that "Israelis" means Jews living in Israel as opposed to Palestinians living in Israel. On the other hand, in the sentence "All Israelis should have equal rights," one is obviously including Palestinians living in Israel.

On purely linguistic grounds, therefore, the relationship between "antisemitic" and "anti-Israel" seems unclear. It might have been clearer had the founders of the Bund der Antisemiten called themselves "Jew-haters" rather than "antisemites," and had the founders of the Jewish state called it "Jewland" rather than "Israel," in the same way that we have England, Ireland, Finland and Poland. One cannot, after all, be an enemy of Ireland but not of the Irish, or of Poland but not of the Poles, and to claim that one hated Ireland but was not anti-Irish because one had nothing against the Irish in America, just as many haters of Israel declare that they are not antisemitic because they have nothing against Jews elsewhere in the world, would strike most people as hair-splitting.

But of course the question is not merely a linguistic one. The argument has been made, and it seems to me a good one, that what ultimately needs to be asked is not whether one can theoretically be anti-Israel but not antisemitic but whether, practically speaking, one's criticisms of Israel reflect a double standard or not. If a person bitterly attacked Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, but also similarly attacked China for its treatment of Tibetans, Russia for its treatment of the Chechens and India for its treatment of the Kashmiris, I would not attribute the criticism to antisemitism even though Israel has far more justification for its actions than any of these countries. If, on the other hand, the same person singled out only or mainly Israel for criticism, an antisemite is what he or she is. That's the bottom line.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.10.11/arts4.html

I did not know all that history. Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry if my opening offended you, but I hope you won't let it blind you to the real message I intended: it is possible to be racist against Arabs.

I am really tired of the argument about whether or not opposition to Israeli government practices equals anti-Semitism. To me, the notion is absurd. Obviously you are too convinced of the democratic nature of Israel to understand the difference between people and government, so let me approach it one last way.

I disagree with you. Do I hate you? No. You disagree with me. Do you hate me? I hope not. It's as simple as that. It's politics. People disagree with each other. That is what democracy is about. To take your understanding, it would seem that democracy is all about hatred. Everyone hates each other so much that they want to live in a democracy so they can freely disagree with/hate each other.

Even if my opposition to the government policies of Israel is inextricably connected to some conflict that I have with the Israeli people, that conflict is not based on hatred. It is based on disagreement. In essence, I think that the way things are being handled over there is not productive. No hate.

I'm so tired of this.

I appreciate your earnest arguments and obvious good faith - I couldn't agree with you more that there is plenty of anti-Arab racism in this world. In Europe, especially, nationalist movements are gaining strength in response to the growing number of Arab immigrants. Whether the coming US war with Iraq betrays anti-Arabism is an open question - the last war in the Gulf saved some Arabs and killed many others and was supported by some Arabs and opposed by others.

I do hope you will research a little history on why of all the countries on the earth people on this site and at marches and rallys focus on the evils of the Jewish state above all others. Good luck.

Because israel gets away with the most horrible crimes againt humanity yet continually advertizes its democracy,,

Nobody owns language.

Yes, European anti-Semitism is the source of the whole problem, and has been used to justify stealing almost 80% of historical Palestine and subjecting the Palestinians to countless horrors.

Racism against a Semitic people is anti-Semitism.

Zionism is anti-Semitic, because it chooses one Semitic people's welfare over another. Menachem Begin was a terrorist. Sharon is a war criminal and a terrorist.

"Anti-Semitism" and "terrorism" are words that get used as weapons. To liberate ourselves from their weaponization, we must adapt their definitions and turn them back around.

A helicopter pilot that shoots missiles at Palestinian civilians is a terrorist, probably an anti-Semitic terrorist, but possibly just a victim of zionist propaganda.

I hate no one.

So why do I say such agrivating things? Partly in an effort to help people see things from perspectives that are unnatural or difficult. Partly because it angers me to see language used as a one-sided weapon.

The master and the slave must come to terms and put the guns and chains away. We must learn to see each other as equal human beings with equal rights and dreams that are more similar than different.

Here in America, we have slept while corrupt leaders feathered their nests with money from special interests, we have learned to pay more attention to sports than to real news, we have given our democratic powers to those with the most money.

We need to relearn how to debate. We need to face one another and express difficult choices and weigh them thoughtfully instead of being afraid of controversy or letting others handle things behind the scenes.

On January 18 in Washington and San Francisco, there will be huge rallies in opposition to Bush's Oil War.

Look at the pictures that get posted. You will see lots of signs from people just like me who oppose US foreign policy in the Middle East.

You will see thousands of people who know that the Palestinians have suffered enough for European anti-Semitism.

Viva the left.

And ye shall be condemned of thine own mouth.

I agree with just about everything that was printed in this article. The US has got disgusting and hypocritical foreign policies. But I'd like to add to this, we need to be very, very careful. I can't agree with any type of extremism. It'll end us all in the cooking pot. In a world where we're rapidly approaching a time when firepower will become irrelevant and one nuke could wipe out a city on both 'sides', we NEED to exercise restraint. The best weapon is education-as harsh and optimistic as that sounds. If America is attacked, it will do more than overeact to protect itself. And like i said firepower will become irrelevant. So maybe you could bring america to it's knees by force, but when its on its knees-it will bring the rest of the world with it. NOBODY WILL WIN. Two extremists (IE extreme US government ignorance & extreme islamic retribution) WILL NOT WORK.
We must find a way to meet on middle ground! Someone NEEDS to be mature about this and take the middle ground. We need to recognise each others arguments because there ARE two sides to every story. I never thought I'd feel like the end of the world was a completely real and not to distant possibility. But WAKE UP, 'cos it is.

the left has turned on the jews, and decided to lie and deceive about every aspect of israel. they want to fault jews fleeing persecution for building up something special in israel, they want to lie and pretend that jews were busting in and kicking people out, they want to ignore the fact that jews weren't kicking ANYONE out and there were NO refugees until arabs decided to make war on israel, and they want to yell that israel's democracy isn't a perfect democracy, and ignore the fact that it's as close to a democracy as it can be considering it's surrounded by a billion lunatics who want to kill them off.

israel's goal is to exist and survive, the palestinian leaders goal has been to make israel die. that's the problem.

to call israel an apartheid state is IDIOTIC, israeli citizens who aren't jewish have full rights and can work whatever jobs they want and take part in government, and their vote is equal to a jewish vote, the only thing israel does is make sure to let jews immigrate, and if that angers you then fuck off, maybe if the rest of the world wasn't such a shitty place israel wouldn't even need to give special preferences to jews in regard to immigration. if you want to focus on racist, sick, nasty countries, focus on the ones below who are 50 times nastier than israel

Q: which country prosecute people for being homosexuals?
A: Egypt

Q: which country used nerve gas against thousands of unprotected civilians?
A: Iraq

Q: Where does mass merdurers awarded 50000$ for killing as many teenagers as possible?
A: in the palestinian authority

Q: Which country killed and tortured as many as 1000 prisioners of war?
A: Syria

Q: In which country were 30,000 curds slaughterd by military forces?
A: Syria

Q: Where does women being hung for adultery?
A: Saudi Arabia

Q: In which country is it ILLEGAL for citizens to be christian or jewish?
A: Saudia Arabia

Q: Name one of the many countries that harrassed jews until LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE ONE was forced to leave
A: Jordan

Q: Name the "Palestinian" state that ALREADY EXISTS
A: Jordan

By Charley Reese
The Orlando Sentinel

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
A: Israel.

Q: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
A: Israel.

Q: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses? A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
A: Israel.

Q: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship in international waters, killing 33 and wounding 177 American sailors?
A: Israel.

Q: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
A: Israel.

Q: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
A: Israel.

Q: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
A: Israel.

Q: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
A: Israel.

Q: What country is the United States threatening to bomb because "U.N. Security Council resolutions must be obeyed?"
A: Iraq

--"israeli citizens who aren't jewish have full rights"

That is a lie. Christian and Muslim Palestinians within Israel are second class citizens who cannot buy land and who can have their homes and property confiscated at will in order to resell it to Jewish immigrants. Just as in the South in the US in the sixties, there is segregation -- Jewish only neighborhoods and schools. And everyone knows that there is no such thing as "separate but equal." Jewish citizens get far more of the resources than Palestinian citizens. Equality for all is not just important, it is absolutely necessary and anything less is racist.

Even Palestinian Knesset members are prevented from holding any views which would attempt to give Palestinians living in Israel EQUAL rights as their Jewish counterparts. Those who try, are prevented from running for office again (like Azmi Bishara).

Those who try are prevented from running for office again like Azmi Bishara whose life was threatened by Israelian officials...

it's pathetic that you guys need to LIE about israel in order to make negative points about it.

you could have a civil, educated debate about what israel shoudl do, and what arabs should do to try to control their lunatic fringes, but instead you just want to rant like nutcases about zionists taking over the world and other idiotic baseless conspiracy crap