1. If you don't believe that Israel has a right to exist and that Jews have a right to national expression in their ancient homeland while at the same time supporting the right of every other group to its own state (e.g., Palestinians, Kurds, Basque, Tibet, etc.) then you might want to take out the mirror and see if you see some anti-Semitism in the background.
Considering the common rationalizations for a nation-state, it is hard to argue that *any* country is as deserving of a strongly defended national home then the Jews.
Here are the commnon rationalizations for nations states: 1. Protect the lives and interests of a vulnerable group 2. Serve as a common home for people with distinct culture, language, religion, and traditions 3. Recognize longstanding historic ties to a particular patch of land 4. De-Facto recognition of a current reality (facts on the ground)
Why are Europeans so fixated on hating Israel?
on
First Israeli in Space
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Could it be Anti-Semitism?
When you think about it, Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Even if the Israeli and Palestinian populations fought to the death it wouldn't make a dent in the world popultion. Despite all the tragedies, the number killed on both sides combined account for only a tiny fraction of the violent deaths in the world. Israel has no natural resources which Europeans covet. If Europeans were truly concerned about doing good in the world, there are many jucier projects both among the neighboring MidEast dictators and in just about every other corner of the world.
To many distant observors, the pathological fixation of Europeans on Israel while at the same time selling their soles to the most evil dictators in the world smacks of a delusional illness. That illness bears an uncanny resemblance to the thousand year fixation of Europeans on opressing their small and weak internal minorities. In the scientific and medical world, when 2 species or maladies exhibit many similarities, Occum's razor calls for classifying them as similar. So, to many European knee-jerk anti-Israel sentiment is near indistinguishable from knee-jerk anti-Semitism. Wh
What else could explain the boycott of Israeli academics even though the academic segment in Israel is about as left wing and pro-Palestinian as any segment?
Of course, since much of Europe contributed collectively to the near extermination of European Jewry, it is only natural that they now need to turn to Israel to find new sources of Jew hatred.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Now of course:...if you reserved all your national hatred and criticisms to black countries......if you referred to the citizens of black countries as subhumans... if you believed that blacks don't have a right to any countries...... if you denigrated all positive achievements of the black countries while choosing to focus exclusively on their faults...
Well, then intelligent people just might call you a racist... (and they probably would be right!)
That one mission saved the US more money (let alone) than all the aid ever given to Israel....and to think of all the self-riteous nations that sat around the security council condemming Israel
Houses containing suicide bombers and missile factories...
You are a classic vicitim of moral equivalence:
1. Suicide bombers purposely target as many innocent women and children as possible
2. Israel responds by targeting specifically the houses used to train terrorists, produce munitions, and serve as ambush points. Sometimes, innocent bystanders are mistakenly hit or targeted.
I only wish Israel were half as cruel as you claim. Instead, Israel daily risks soldiers lives by conducting pinpoint missions rather than engaging in the type of B52 carpet bombing that the US and its allies use in Afghanistan.
In fact, most observors would agree that if Israel had "only" been a bit a bit less cautious in applying force, this whole bloody Intifidah would have been put down in a couple of days leaving only a few hundred at most dead. We would then be back to the peace process... Instead, Israel has chosen the classic Western response of measured reaction which in the long run tends to only prolong the conflict.
An objective comparison of Israeli vs. Palestinian behavior would be to look at the demographics of the victims. Assuming that on both sided children under 10 and to a lesser extent women tend to be non-combatants, why don't you look at the "kill ratios" for boths sides?
It is a small miracle and a testament to Israels' overly concern with human rights and human rights that after more than 2 years of constant attacks, "only" about 2000 Palestinians have been killed or about 2 per day. If you look only at non-combatant Palestinians, then you have about one a week. Believe, me if Israel were trigger happy, there would be thousands a day. What other *daily* World conflict has led to less death?
Many Palestinians have been known to admit how lucky they are to have Israel as their enemy rather than one of their brother Arab leaders. When there was a rebellion in Syria, Assad put it down by killing 20,000 in a month. Similarly, the great moderate King Hussein of Jordan killed more Palestinians than Israel ever did in just one short Month in September 1970.
You may be a student of Latin, but you are certainly no student of history.
Go learn some Roman history and you will see when and why the Romans changed the name on their maps from Judea to Palestine. (hint: it had something to do with punishing the Jews for a recent revolt). Similarly, Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina (some more Latin for you:)
Or look at some more modern history, where the major English Jewish paper was called the "Palestine Post". Before 1948, the local Arab population actively refused to identify with the term Palestine since that term had long been used to refer to the Jewish concept and geography of the Holy Land.
Here is some background:
It was not until the Romans crushed the second Jewish revolt against Rome in 135 A.D. under Bar Kochba that Emperor Hadrian applied the term Palestine to the Land of Israel. Hadrian, like many dictators since his time realized the propaganda power of terms and symbols. He replaced the shrines of the Jewish Temple and the Sepulchre of Christ in Jerusalem with temples to pagan deities. He changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitalina, and changed the name of Israel and Judea to Palestine. Hadrian's selection of Palestine was purposeful, not accidental. He took the name of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines, Latinized it to Palestine, and applied it to the Land of Israel. He hoped to erase the name Israel from all memory. Thus, the term Palestine as applied to the Land of Israel was invented by the inveterate enemy of the Bible and the Jewish people, Emperor Hadrian.
It is interesting to note that the original Philistines were not Middle Eastern at all. They were European peoples from the Adriatic sea next to Greece. It may have pleased Hadrian to utilize this Hellenistic term for the Jewish land. In any case, the original "Palestinians" had nothing to do, whatsoever, with any Arabs.
Learn some history.
Israel was a remote outpost of the Ottoman empire that was mostly devestated and had few inhabitants until the Jewish immigration catalyzed development and an economic boom. Just read Mark Twain's lamenting depiction of the Holy Land in the mid-19th century to get the picture.
Indeed the Northern part of Israel were swampy and malaria infested until drained by Israeli pioneers. Much of the rest of the land was desert (in fact if you pick up paving stones in many cities such as Tel Aviv) you will see "sand" underneath.
Palestine was a name "chosen" by the Romans to punish the Jews after a failed revolt in the 1st century CE. They purposely evoked the sound of the ancient "Phillistines" to negate one thousand years of Jewish nationhood.
Of course the Philistines have no ethnic or racial connection to the current Palestinians who descend from nomadic Arabic tribes. The Phillistines who were originally concentrated in the Southern Coastal plain were long gone even by the time of the Romans.
Of course over time, the term Palestine became to be associated with the Jews not the Arabs. In fact, the pre-state Jewish newspaper was called the Palestine Post. The local Arabs before the "discovery" of Palestinian nationalism adamantly refused to be called Palestinians and instead identified with greater Syria or other pan-Arab ideas.
The vast majority of current-day Palestinians have roots in the area going back only about 100 years or so, having immigrated contemporaneously with the better known Zionist immigration.
Of course, you also know that even with the West Bank and Gaza strip the current area under Israeli control is only about 22% of the original British mandate for a Jewish National Home. Trans (Jordan) was split off in the 1920s. The British and UN then decided to split the remaining ~20% between Jews and Arabs, but the greedy Arab nations weren't even willing to concede 10% of the original mandated territory to a Jewish state, so they launched the first of many wars. In the course of those wars, Israel gained territory first in 1948 and then again in 1967. Only once the Arabs realized that they couldn't destroy Israel on the battlefield did they invent and then promote Palestinain nationalism and rights.
Just one further tidbit:
Did you know that the Israeli *Arab* infant mortality rate is now lower than the infant mortality rate in any other Arab country, including such rich areas such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe 1 is vague.
I will rephrase.
1. If you don't believe that Israel has a right to exist and that Jews have a right to national expression in their ancient homeland while at the same time supporting the right of every other group to its own state (e.g., Palestinians, Kurds, Basque, Tibet, etc.) then you might want to take out the mirror and see if you see some anti-Semitism in the background.
Considering the common rationalizations for a nation-state, it is hard to argue that *any* country is as deserving of a strongly defended national home then the Jews.
Here are the commnon rationalizations for nations states:
1. Protect the lives and interests of a vulnerable group
2. Serve as a common home for people with distinct culture, language, religion, and traditions
3. Recognize longstanding historic ties to a particular patch of land
4. De-Facto recognition of a current reality (facts on the ground)
Could it be Anti-Semitism?
When you think about it, Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. Even if the Israeli and Palestinian populations fought to the death it wouldn't make a dent in the world popultion. Despite all the tragedies, the number killed on both sides combined account for only a tiny fraction of the violent deaths in the world. Israel has no natural resources which Europeans covet. If Europeans were truly concerned about doing good in the world, there are many jucier projects both among the neighboring MidEast dictators and in just about every other corner of the world.
To many distant observors, the pathological fixation of Europeans on Israel while at the same time selling their soles to the most evil dictators in the world smacks of a delusional illness. That illness bears an uncanny resemblance to the thousand year fixation of Europeans on opressing their small and weak internal minorities. In the scientific and medical world, when 2 species or maladies exhibit many similarities, Occum's razor calls for classifying them as similar. So, to many European knee-jerk anti-Israel sentiment is near indistinguishable from knee-jerk anti-Semitism. Wh
What else could explain the boycott of Israeli academics even though the academic segment in Israel is about as left wing and pro-Palestinian as any segment?
Of course, since much of Europe contributed collectively to the near extermination of European Jewry, it is only natural that they now need to turn to Israel to find new sources of Jew hatred.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Now of course: ...if you reserved all your national hatred and criticisms to black countries... ...if you referred to the citizens of black countries as subhumans ... if you believed that blacks don't have a right to any countries... ... if you denigrated all positive achievements of the black countries while choosing to focus exclusively on their faults...
Well, then intelligent people just might call you a racist... (and they probably would be right!)
That one mission saved the US more money (let alone) than all the aid ever given to Israel. ...and to think of all the self-riteous nations that sat around the security council condemming Israel
Houses containing suicide bombers and missile factories... You are a classic vicitim of moral equivalence: 1. Suicide bombers purposely target as many innocent women and children as possible 2. Israel responds by targeting specifically the houses used to train terrorists, produce munitions, and serve as ambush points. Sometimes, innocent bystanders are mistakenly hit or targeted. I only wish Israel were half as cruel as you claim. Instead, Israel daily risks soldiers lives by conducting pinpoint missions rather than engaging in the type of B52 carpet bombing that the US and its allies use in Afghanistan. In fact, most observors would agree that if Israel had "only" been a bit a bit less cautious in applying force, this whole bloody Intifidah would have been put down in a couple of days leaving only a few hundred at most dead. We would then be back to the peace process... Instead, Israel has chosen the classic Western response of measured reaction which in the long run tends to only prolong the conflict. An objective comparison of Israeli vs. Palestinian behavior would be to look at the demographics of the victims. Assuming that on both sided children under 10 and to a lesser extent women tend to be non-combatants, why don't you look at the "kill ratios" for boths sides? It is a small miracle and a testament to Israels' overly concern with human rights and human rights that after more than 2 years of constant attacks, "only" about 2000 Palestinians have been killed or about 2 per day. If you look only at non-combatant Palestinians, then you have about one a week. Believe, me if Israel were trigger happy, there would be thousands a day. What other *daily* World conflict has led to less death? Many Palestinians have been known to admit how lucky they are to have Israel as their enemy rather than one of their brother Arab leaders. When there was a rebellion in Syria, Assad put it down by killing 20,000 in a month. Similarly, the great moderate King Hussein of Jordan killed more Palestinians than Israel ever did in just one short Month in September 1970.
You may be a student of Latin, but you are certainly no student of history. Go learn some Roman history and you will see when and why the Romans changed the name on their maps from Judea to Palestine. (hint: it had something to do with punishing the Jews for a recent revolt). Similarly, Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina (some more Latin for you :)
Or look at some more modern history, where the major English Jewish paper was called the "Palestine Post". Before 1948, the local Arab population actively refused to identify with the term Palestine since that term had long been used to refer to the Jewish concept and geography of the Holy Land.
Here is some background:
It was not until the Romans crushed the second Jewish revolt against Rome in 135 A.D. under Bar Kochba that Emperor Hadrian applied the term Palestine to the Land of Israel. Hadrian, like many dictators since his time realized the propaganda power of terms and symbols. He replaced the shrines of the Jewish Temple and the Sepulchre of Christ in Jerusalem with temples to pagan deities. He changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitalina, and changed the name of Israel and Judea to Palestine. Hadrian's selection of Palestine was purposeful, not accidental. He took the name of the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines, Latinized it to Palestine, and applied it to the Land of Israel. He hoped to erase the name Israel from all memory. Thus, the term Palestine as applied to the Land of Israel was invented by the inveterate enemy of the Bible and the Jewish people, Emperor Hadrian.
It is interesting to note that the original Philistines were not Middle Eastern at all. They were European peoples from the Adriatic sea next to Greece. It may have pleased Hadrian to utilize this Hellenistic term for the Jewish land. In any case, the original "Palestinians" had nothing to do, whatsoever, with any Arabs.
Learn some history. Israel was a remote outpost of the Ottoman empire that was mostly devestated and had few inhabitants until the Jewish immigration catalyzed development and an economic boom. Just read Mark Twain's lamenting depiction of the Holy Land in the mid-19th century to get the picture. Indeed the Northern part of Israel were swampy and malaria infested until drained by Israeli pioneers. Much of the rest of the land was desert (in fact if you pick up paving stones in many cities such as Tel Aviv) you will see "sand" underneath. Palestine was a name "chosen" by the Romans to punish the Jews after a failed revolt in the 1st century CE. They purposely evoked the sound of the ancient "Phillistines" to negate one thousand years of Jewish nationhood. Of course the Philistines have no ethnic or racial connection to the current Palestinians who descend from nomadic Arabic tribes. The Phillistines who were originally concentrated in the Southern Coastal plain were long gone even by the time of the Romans. Of course over time, the term Palestine became to be associated with the Jews not the Arabs. In fact, the pre-state Jewish newspaper was called the Palestine Post. The local Arabs before the "discovery" of Palestinian nationalism adamantly refused to be called Palestinians and instead identified with greater Syria or other pan-Arab ideas. The vast majority of current-day Palestinians have roots in the area going back only about 100 years or so, having immigrated contemporaneously with the better known Zionist immigration. Of course, you also know that even with the West Bank and Gaza strip the current area under Israeli control is only about 22% of the original British mandate for a Jewish National Home. Trans (Jordan) was split off in the 1920s. The British and UN then decided to split the remaining ~20% between Jews and Arabs, but the greedy Arab nations weren't even willing to concede 10% of the original mandated territory to a Jewish state, so they launched the first of many wars. In the course of those wars, Israel gained territory first in 1948 and then again in 1967. Only once the Arabs realized that they couldn't destroy Israel on the battlefield did they invent and then promote Palestinain nationalism and rights. Just one further tidbit: Did you know that the Israeli *Arab* infant mortality rate is now lower than the infant mortality rate in any other Arab country, including such rich areas such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?