Seeds of Hate

[msmcghee]

January 6, 2008

By JEFFREY GOLDBERG

One day in Damascus not long ago, I visited the understocked gift shop of the Sheraton Hotel, looking for something to read. There wasn’t much: pre-owned Grishams, a hagiography of Hafez al-Assad, an early Bill O’Reilly (go figure) and a paperback copy of “The International Jew,” published in 2000 in Beirut. “The International Jew” is a collection of columns exposing the putative role of Jews in such fields as international finance, world governance and bootlegging. “Wherever the seat of power may be, thither they swarm obsequiously,” the book states. These columns, which are based on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” — they are a plagiary of a forgery, in other words — were first published in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent more than 80 years ago.

Next to “The International Jew” was a copy of “The Bible Came From Arabia,” a piece of twaddle that suggests the Jews are not Jews and Israel isn’t Israel. And then there was a pamphlet called “Secrets of the Talmud.” Not knowing these secrets (I was raised Reform), I started reading. The Talmud apparently teaches Jews how best to demolish the world economy and gives Jews the right to take non-Jewish women as slaves and rape them.

The anti-Semitic worldview, generally speaking, is fantastically stupid. If its propagandists actually understood the chosen people, they would know, for instance, that no one, not the chief of Mossad, not even the president of Hadassah, could persuade 4,000 Jews to stay home from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. (“And why should I listen to you?” would have been the near-universal rebuttal to the call.) Anti-Semitic conspiracy literature not only posits crude and senseless ideas, but also tends to be riddled with typos, repetitions and gross errors of grammar, and for this and other reasons I occasionally have trouble taking it seriously.

The German scholar Matthias Küntzel tells us this is a mistake. He takes anti-Semitism, and in particular its most potent current strain, Muslim anti-Semitism, very seriously indeed. His bracing, even startling, book, “Jihad and Jew-Hatred” (translated by Colin Meade), reminds us that it is perilous to ignore idiotic ideas if these idiotic ideas are broadly, and fervently, believed. And across the Muslim world, the very worst ideas about Jews — intricate, outlandish conspiracy theories about their malevolent and absolute power over world affairs — have become scandalously ubiquitous. Hezbollah and Hamas, to name two prominent examples, understand the world largely through the prism of Jewish power. Hezbollah officials employ language that shamelessly echoes Nazi propaganda, describing Jews as parasites and tumors and prescribing the murder of Jews as a kind of chemotherapy.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/review/Goldberg-t.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&ref=books&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[cloudbase]

1. It would actually be pretty neat

if the Jews really had all the power and influence attributed to them by others.

[YOY]

2. and the gays too

I met a Ron Paul supporter who beleives there is a gay/Jewish cooalition bent on wiping out white Christians...no shit.

Yes, I did lose my temper...but I did get the "you're not Christian whatsoever" out.

[Vegasaurus]

3. But although Jews only make up 2% of the population

they make up anywhere from 15-30% of Ivy League colleges. And people think there is a conspiracy in that as well.

Many of the most outlandish conspiracy theories of all can be traced back to anti-semitic roots. It's always the "Jew's fault", whether it is media influence, foreign policy decisions, the "Fall of family values" in Hollywood, the control of banks and money, or who's behind 9/11.

Doesn't matter where one starts with conspiracies or someone to blame, he always ends up in the same place.

[cloudbase]

4. It's hell being raised

to value education.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. Isn't it criminal that European and western (and Christian) anti-semitism has yet to be

adequately addressed.

[Vegasaurus]

6. Western anti-semitism continues to be a problem

But the virulent anti-semitism, the "Protocols of Zion" type, is not as evident anywhere in the world as it is in the middle east, as was the point of the OP.

[msmcghee]

7. I was wondering how you were going to try to deflect the thread.

I didn't think it would be so obvious.

As someone with a large Palestinian family I think your views of the conflict are an important source of information for this forum. Like pelsar, I'm glad you're here.

From your inside view, does your family feel any regrets that this very base form of antisemitism is so thoroughly embedded in Arab views of the ME conflict?

Do they see that as an impediment to peace at all?

Are they working to set the record straight?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. I'm deflecting nothing. The point of the article is the importation of European anti-semitism.

What a pity that the west was never actually held accountable.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

10. "Also, the article was not about importation. "

"It was eagerly imported by those Arabs and then disseminated to other Arabs on the street."
:wow:

[Shaktimaan]

13. You don't think so?

I honestly think that post-Holocaust Europe has been doing a pretty good job of educating their citizenry and making whatever amends possible with Shoah victims (not that there can really ever be adequate restitution.) While there are always flare ups of anti-semitism, most western europeans seem to have moved past it. Places like Poland, which was always one of the worst hotbeds of anti-semitism anywhere, is even making substantial progress, though there aren't any Jews left there to either influence opinion or take advantage of any changes in it. That said, Eastern Europe is still pretty bad with this problem.

Interestingly, most of the anti-semitic attacks seen recently in western europe originated from their middle eastern immigrant communities, creating a weird situation whereby anti-semitism is being "re-imported" back into europe from the middle east, while using the same propaganda that originated in the west generations ago. So western-style anti-semitism, (the protocols, international Jew, etc.,) and its traditional memes were exported to the east, even while being systematically discredited in Europe, only to then be re-introduced by new immigrants.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. I really don't.

I don't think there has been a full-scale reckoning, especially in the Church. And I say that as someone who's been to theological seminary and studied church history!

I think it's unfortunate that even "friendly" nations like the US never had to answer in a real way for decisions that were made that allowed death camps to continue to operate. Then again, other than an official apology and reparations, how can a national culture be re-educated? What was done in Poland, I'm curious to know?

Googling around the web here in this country, it's shocking what you find (and it isn't necessarily from Arab-Americans).

[LeftishBrit]

16. 'shocking what you find' on the web- I have to agree here!

I've seen some truly horrible sites. In the UK and Europe, it tends mainly to be those linked to the BNP or other neo-Nazis. There *are* also some nasty far-RW-Islamic sites, but the traditionally neo-Nazi ones appear much more prominent and numerous. There are certainly some awful American sites, which spread neo-Protocols stuff; Holocaust denial; stuff about the Talmud very similar to what was in the OP; etc. Although I have not made a systematic study, and for the sake of my sanity and digestion, will not; these sites seem mostly to be either traditional-hard-right, or conspiracist. Unfortunately, both types, especially the latter, are occasionally taken to be 'progressive' because they criticize Bush and the war. Not long ago, someone was banned from DU for promoting an anti-semitic article from National Vanguard!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. These same bigots

tend to hate arabs and muslims as well.

I don't downplay the reality and danger of anti-semitism -- then or now. Sometimes I disagree with people about what constitutes anti-semitism (ie criticism of Israel), but like you, I tend to avoid places that spew that ugly crap.

[LeftishBrit]

47. That is all too true...

People like the BNP are against both Jews and Muslims, and indeed against anyone who might be seen as 'foreign'. There are, I think, some differences between the *emphasis* in British and American prejudices: overall IMO, Americans are more directly concerned with religious differences; British racists are more likely to be against 'immigrants' and their descendants. Whatever form it takes, it ends up being pretty nasty.

[Vegasaurus]

18. The extreme left

which sometimes falls under the auspices of "progressive", includes some anti-war movement groups (ANSWER,etc) which are incredibly anti-semitic. Some believe their rhetoric is just anti-Israel; it really isn't, and is all about Jews controlling US foreign policy, and the world, which is Protocols shit, not genuine criticism of Israeli policy.

There is a close connection between extreme right white supremacist, Neo-Nazi sites, and extreme left sites or groups, which spout dangerously similar things.

[LeftishBrit]

46. What exactly do you mean by 'extreme left'?

Are you referring to 'communist' groups that could be influenced by old Soviet propaganda - or what sort of groups?

[rayofreason]

39. Importation requires local retailers and customers...

...and there were many in the 1930's who were eager to fill both roles as Nazi Germany exported its world view to the ME.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is a leading example. The Baathists are another.

The pernicious influence of horrible ideas of European origin is plain. Anti-Semitism is one and Marxism is another. So should not every effort be made to excise these ideas from the Arab body politic? Blaming somebody else while turning a blind eye to the local encouragement and implementation of self-destructive thinking is nonsense. It is like the Khmer Rouge blaming Western intellectuals for the killing fields that they created.

The truth is that throughout the ME, Arab governments not only allow crude and ridiculous Anti-Semitism, they actually encourage and subsidize it. The PA is one of the worst offenders, exceeded only by Hamas. Until I see that education of children stops teaching hated and instead promotes peaceful, permanent coexistence, I have difficultly in believing that the goal of the Palestinian leadership is anything other than the extermination of the state of Israel and the imposition on any surviving Jews of permanent dhimmitude.

Regardless of the fact that significant chunks of current pathologies in the Arab political culture are European in origin, it is only the Arabs who can get rid of the pathologies.

[Vegasaurus]

40. Agree completely

And, despite what some people want to believe, those pathologies are significant impediments to peace.

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. the truth about Palestinian education ---

link:

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=8797&CategoryId=4

"The claim that the new Palestinian textbooks incite students against Israel has been widely accepted as truth in the United States and Israel. The report on which such claims were based was issued by CMIP, a Jewish-American organization with known links to the Israeli settlement movement in the West Bank. Yet none of the American politicians who repeated the allegations or the Western donors who hastened to cut off funding for Palestinian textbook development bothered to have the report's claims checked against the actual texts. If they had, it would immediately have been clear that the report was based on innuendo, exaggeration, and downright lies. Indeed, the real message of CMIP's campaign against the textbooks is that peace with the Palestinians is impossible, that Israeli settlement in the occupied territories must go on, that force is the only language that Palestinians can understand.

In fact, the new Palestinian school textbooks make a special effort to promote tolerance, openness, and democratic values. The PA Ministry of Education, despite the extraordinary conditions of siege and violence under which it is operating, introduced new textbooks for two more grades in September 2001. The new textbooks, according to those who have seen them, demonstrate the same concern for promoting tolerance, openness, and democratic values. But even if all the grades in Palestinian schools carried absolutely exemplary textbooks, and even if all the teachers preached amity and concord, it is doubtful that such values could take hold in the ever deteriorating conditions of recent years. For ultimately, the Israeli occupation, with its daily cruelty and humiliation, is a far more powerful text than any schoolbooks could possible be. As Sami Adwan remarked, "How can a Palestinian write in a textbook that Israelis or Jews should be loved, while what he is experiencing is death, land expropriation, demolition of homes, and daily degradation? Give us a chance to teach loving."

In a forthcoming study, Nadim Rouhana argues that conflict reconciliation, as opposed to conflict resolution or conflict settlement, seeks to achieve a kind of relationship between the parties founded on mutual legitimacy. For this to occur, issues of justice, truth, and historical responsibility as well as the restructuring of social and political relations need to be addressed."

related articles:

Palestinian Schoolbooks
by Council of the European Union 15 May 2002

link:

http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/mepp/faq/heads_%20mission_schoolbooks.pdf

----

Israel or Palestine: Who teaches what history? A textbook case
by Elisa Morena in Le Monde Diplomatique, July 2001

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2001/07/11textbook

----

Democracy, History and the Contest over the Palestinian Curriculum
by Nathan J. Brown November 2001

link:

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm

------

What Do Palestinian Textbooks Really Say?
by Nathan J. Brown, 2002

link:

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/CAJE.htm

-----

The International controversy regarding Palestinian textbooks
by Nathan J. Brown, 9 December 2002

link:

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Georg_Eckert.htm

-------

Israelis' textbooks fare little better than Palestinians'
by Akiva Eldar in Ha'aretz, 9 December 2004

link:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=511923

-----

Palestinian textbooks: Where is all that 'incitement'?
by Roger Avenstrup in International Herald Tribune, 18 December 2004

link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/18/edavenstrup_ed3_.php


.

[Vegasaurus]

67. I am not interested in another Palestinian textbook discussion

because I don't think that was the point of Rayofreason's post, nor my agreement to it.

However, at least be accurate or timely with links: yours are from 2002. New textbooks were published at the end of 2006, and everyone, including Hillary Clinton, had something to say about them.

Haaretz, which is a source that many on both sides of the debate seem to quote, had an article on 3/20/07:

"The teachings repeatedly reject Israel's right to exist, present the conflict as a religious battle for Islam, teach Israel's founding as imperialism, and actively portray a picture of the Middle East, both verbally and visually, in which Israel does not exist at all," the group wrote in a February report entitled "From nationalist battle to religious conflict: New 12th Grade Palestinian schoolbooks present a world without Israel."


According to the report, the book describes the establishment of the State of Israel by saying: "Palestine's war ended with a catastrophe unprecedented in history, when the Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people from their cities, their villages, their lands and their houses, and established the State of Israel."


The textbooks were written by the Center for Developing the Palestinian Curricula and introduced by the Palestinian Authority at the end of 2006, according to the report.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/839584.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

91. my goodness, are Palestinian textbooks supposed to teach history from the Zionist narrative?

If you google the name Itamar Marcus the author of this report mentioned above, you will find that he writes for Frontpage and a whole lot of hardline rightwing sites.

But I don't think this whole "textbook issue" is really about textbooks at all. I think its about trying to portray the Palestinians as an uncivilized and unreasonable people who are incapable of making peace. Thus the settlements expansion must go on.

What country in the world is required to teach history from the perspective of their historic rivals? Even Canadian children's textbooks teach Canadian history from the perspective of the Canadian narrative - describing the War of 1812 as an unproved invasion to destroy Canadian independence - which resulted in much of Toronto being burnt and destroyed. French and British history books at the primary and secondary level certainly teach the history of their conflicts with each other from their own national perspective

The former Soviet Union imposed on Poland and other Eastern European countries the teaching of history that was quite flattering to the Soviet Union, but laughable to Eastern Europeans.

Its a bit outrageous to insist that Palestinians be taught history from the Israeli perspective - especially when so many mainstream Israeli historian have come to challenge the whole narrative themselves.

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

Here is an earlier response from the Palestinian Ministry of Education to earlier writings of Itamar Marcus regarding this whole silly issue which was published in the Jerusalem Post as an editorial:

"Itamar Marcus again;
Jerusalem Post editorial1 about Palestinian schoolbooks
Gabriel Baramki
September 7, 2003

I hesitated a lot before embarking on a response to Itamar Marcus’ article: “Planting seeds of the next war: the truth about the Palestinian textbooks”. However, I found it necessary to address once and for all some of the points raised in the article in the hope that we can address the Real issues and not fabrications in the future. The most meaningful gauge for the integrity of a peace process and its likelihood for success is by far the sincerity and good intention of the “peace partners” in attaining a comprehensive peace. Itamar Marcus, under the guise of an honest observer and believer in peace, has been using his poisonous attacks on Palestinian textbooks as a cover for the Israeli intentions towards peace, and their unwillingness to accept a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel, as the prerequisite to peace. Before we go into Marcus’ analysis, it is necessary to stress that deeds on the ground are more important than pronouncements to the international media about intentions. A “partner” in peace that speaks of peace and on the ground does exactly the opposite of what peace requires cannot be a trusted partner in peace. Building the “apartheid wall” on Palestinian territory, and building settlements and expanding them in the heart of the Palestinian territories, do not spell peace no matter how much one educates the children and the public to the contrary.

Palestinian schoolbooks cannot and should not be examined in the absence of an equal scrutiny of the Israeli textbooks. And while Palestinian National Authority’s experience in writing textbooks is a fairly recent one, the Israeli experience goes back to over 50 years.

The referral to Jordanian books as anti-Semitic is interesting. The same Jordanian textbooks that the Palestinian Authority is using, did not stop Israel from signing a peace agreement with Jordan and, in fact, the peace between the two countries is rather an active one. This should be a good indication that once there is intention on both sides and partners to attain peace, the textbooks cannot stand in the way. The Israeli occupation authority used the Jordanian textbooks for 30 years, and they claim that they removed the “hate education” from them before reprinting them. Unfortunately, some of the things they removed had nothing to do with hate. Displacing the word “Palestine” wherever it occurred in the textbooks by the word “Israel” no matter in what context or period in time, was so ridiculous that it became a laughing matter amongst students and teachers alike, (as an example, in the History textbook of the ninth grade about the crusades, the text “When the Crusades came to Palestine in the 11th century” became “when the Crusades came to Israel”). Other displacements were more subtle but dangerous. Learning such values as “valor”, “love of one’s land”, “sacrifice”, and similar values in reading books is important for children, and they cannot be described as “hate material”, yet many statements and poems with such values were removed. If anything, they indicated bad intentions on the part of Israel in mis-educating Palestinian children. So that is the story or myth of the Jordanian syllabus. Suffice it for now to say that the Palestinian National Authority is using the Jordanian textbooks until such time that the Palestinian textbooks are ready.

At no point have any “foreign governments” offered money to the PNA to reprint the old Jordanian books without the so-called “hate material” as Marcus claims. This is another fabrication of his imagination. If Mr. Marcus or the Israeli government, as part of their usual hate campaign, asked some “foreign governments” to do so, we are glad indeed that these foreign governments knew better and did not respond to his wishes.

As for the textbooks on religious education, Mr. Marcus would have done better to analyze and explain the texts from the Old Testament in Israeli schools, with which, I hope, he is more familiar, than with texts from the Quran that obviously he does not understand and misinterprets to suit his anti Islamic sentiments. Had he read carefully the text about “those who were charged with the Torah” and the context in which it was said, he would have realized that the referral was to those (Jews and others) who did not understand what God was saying to them, i.e. to the illiterate. They are likened to a donkey that carries books and it is a figure of speech and has nothing to do with calling Jews donkeys. But perhaps Mr. Marcus can explain better what message is given to the pupils who are taught the book of Joshua, especially about the attitude of Jews towards non-Jews, “when the trumpets sounded, the people shouted …and the wall (of Jericho) collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle sheep and donkeys”2. Unfortunately, we do not have an exact antonym for anti-Semitism that we can use to describe the actions of Jews to non-Jews, which is no less loathsome than anti-Semitism. In any case, I believe it is a totally useless exercise going into religious education because here in all religions, one is bound to find things to one’s liking and others that are not, and unfortunately, these are all supposed to be words of God and one cannot argue about that. Perhaps all religious education should be abolished in schools and replaced by ethics, leaving religious education per se for the religious schools or the churches, mosques and synagogues. But until people on both sides decide on this matter, it would be more useful to be more positive about each other’s religions and take them as they are.

Finally, we come to the issue of recognition of the right of Israel to exist and all the other arguments about history and Geography. This has become like a broken record that Mr. Marcus keeps repeating and I will refrain from responding to this issue, which has been dealt with by many scholars.3 I will only want to say that before Marcus opens this subject, he should indicate where he stands regarding mutual recognition. To continue talking about Judea and Samaria instead of Palestinian territories, is a non-starter and he should not expect the Palestinians to even discuss this subject. Living on stolen Palestinian property in a settlement in the occupied territories, is considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court (it is a serious violation of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949). It would be important when we talk about recognition and borders, to use the international law and conventions and UN resolutions in their totality and not selectively. As long as the textbooks clearly refer to the geography of the country and the date of the maps, then, in the absence of an agreement by both parties who are contesting the area of Palestine, we should not embark on this subject before a political agreement is reached and the borders agreed upon for the two states- Palestine and Israel. Indeed, I am glad that Mr. Marcus had not established an “Egypt Media Watch” or a “Jordan Media Watch” before those two countries signed the peace agreement with Israel, as probably we would still be arguing and counter arguing about textbooks, while peace would still be waiting.

Gabriel Baramki is a Consultant to the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Ramallah. "

link:

http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/Baramki_responds.htm

.

[Vegasaurus]

94. So, members of the forum like Haaretz

when if fits with their view, and don't like it (or the authors) when it doesnt. How convenient.

Incidentally, no one is saying that the Palestinian historical narrative has to be from the Israeli point of view. But it doesn't need to be violent and inflammatory either.

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. Haaretz carries a wide range of opinions and a wide range of authors

For you or I or anyone to be even remotely sympathetic with all of them wouldn't just require inconvenience...it would require schizophrenia

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. 75 percent of Israeli-Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated, uncivilized , dirty

Is this kind of pathology an obstacle to peace?

This was poll was actually based on 1600 students at 22 high schools within Israel.

""The data was presented at a bi-lingual conference held in Haifa. The study, titled "Perception of 'the Other' among Jewish and Arab Youth in Israel" included 1,600 students studying in 22 high schools around the country. "

"The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.
On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean."

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

-----

In another poll - Remembering both these polls refer to Palestinians who live inside Israel and hold Israeli citizenship -- people commonly refereed to as "Israeli-Arabs". A people who have certainly not been in a state of rebellion for most of the past 60 years:

"The poll presented Wednesday showed that 68 percent of respondents said they do not wish to live next to an Arab neighbor, compared with 26 percent who said they would agree.

Responding to a question about Arab friends, 46 percent said they would not be willing to have Arab friends who would visit them at their home.

Some 63 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab civilians as a security and demographic threat, and 34 percent of the Jewish public sees Arab culture as inferior compared to Israeli culture. Half of the population, according to the poll, is anxious and uncomfortable when hearing Arabic on the street.

link: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3231048,00.html

and among the very quite and almost docile Palestinians with Israeli citizenship: ""Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395572629&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

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

And as far as subsidizing racism...it possible that the billions upon billions spent to maintain and expand, expand and expand racist-apartheid settlements which overtly exclude Arabs and are build on Occupied Palestinian land and confiscated Palestinian land are an impediment to peace? --- settlements that along with their infrastructure make a funtioning Palestinian economy and society completely nonviable.. settlements with overtly racist-apartheid policies which continue to expand and expand and expand relentlessly even as we speak.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Ah, Douglas. You have to examine this in a more abstract way! Then you'll see it's not bigotry!

See, one thing this thread and a recent one has taught me is that if bigoted statements are made against Arabs or Muslims we MUST examine it in its full context in order to ascertain if it's bigotry. Then we MUST keep in mind that the people who hold these views aren't engaging in original bigotry, and it's also important to remind ourselves that it's totally natural to want to defend ones social identity and it's an understandable response to threatening behaviour. And remember, the bigotry isn't aimed at them because they're Arabs or Muslims - there's other underlying causes, y'know. And of course unless the statements are made against ALL Arabs or Muslims and the word ALL appears, then it's not bigoted, and of course we have to stop and think to ourselves: 'Now, are they making that statement out of a political motive or a racist one?' Coz if it's a political motive, then it's not bigotry at all, which is why Daniel Pipes isn't a bigot!

When it comes to bigoted statements against Jews, it's a whole different ballgame. There's no need to examine any statement in its full context to ascertain if it's bigotry, coz, like, only antisemites do that. Original bigotry? Political rather than racist motives? WTF? All that matters is it's bigotry! And if someone were to come out with a comment saying it's an understandable response to violent behaviour when it comes to the I/P conflict, then they'd be informed haughtily that it's trying to blame the victims of bigotry for the bigotry existing....

If some of the things I've seen said in these threads when it comes to bigotry against Arabs and Muslims were applied to bigotry against Jews, everyone would quite rightly be up in arms about it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. thank you.....now I understand

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. I wonder what the context there is for this kind of American born bigotry against Arabs

Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People

"Where are the human images of Arabs and Arab Americans? That’s the topic of a new film called “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People.” It’s based on a book by the same name by acclaimed media critic Jack Shaheen. Both the book and the film explore the American cinematic landscape to reveal a stark pattern of Arab stereotyping and its disturbing similarity to anti-Semitic and other racist caricatures through history."

link to listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/19/reel_bad_arabs_how_hollywood_vilifies

snip:

snip;"ACK SHAHEEN: Disney's Aladdin was seen by millions of children worldwide. It was hailed as one of Disney's finest accomplishments, but the film recycled every old degrading stereotype from Hollywood’s silent black-and-white past.

ALADDIN OPENING MUSIC: Oh, I come from a land, from a faraway place, where the caravan camels grow, where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face. It’s barbaric, but, hey, it’s home.

JACK SHAHEEN: “Where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face. It’s barbaric, but, hey, it’s home.” Now, how could a producer with a modicum of intelligence, just a modicum of sensitivity, let a song such as that open the film? 300 movies, nearly 25% of all Hollywood movies that, in one way or another, demean Arabs, contain gratuitous slurs, or they portray Arabs as being the butt of a cheap joke.

UNIDENTIFIED: We were going into Mecca, see? And the plane is full of Arabs with these animals -- goats, sheep, chickens. I mean, they don’t go anywhere without their goddamn animals. We had to put plastic in the cabins. You know, they urinate, they defecate.

JACK SHAHEEN: You have films by Neil Simon like Chapter Two." The beginning of the film, the protagonist arrives back from London, and his brother says, “How was London?” And he says, “Full of Arabs.”

LEO SCHNEIDER: How was London?

GEORGE SCHNEIDER: Full of Arabs.

JACK SHAHEEN: Wow! Imagine if he had said, “Full of blacks,” “Full of Jews,” “Full of Hispanics.” I mean, that’s ridiculous. Why do we do these things?

One of the most offensive films, with the gratuitous images, Father of the Bride 2. It features Steve Martin selling his house to a Mr. Habib.

MR. HABIB: We like house very much. When you can move out?

GEORGE BANKS: Excuse me?

REALTOR: The Habibs would like to buy the house, George. It’s exactly what they’ve been looking for.

MR. HABIB: Yes. When you can move? We need house a week from Wednesday. And my wife wants flower dishes in kitchen. You sell? We pay top dollar.

JACK SHAHEEN: When Habib’s submissive wife tries to speak, he shouts gibberish at her. And then he offers Martin a $15,000 cash bonus to move out in ten days. When Martin tells Mr. Habib that he doesn’t want to sell the house after all, he finds Habib's wrecking crew there, ready to demolish his beautiful home. And in a scene that calls to mind one of the most degrading stereotypes of the Jewish people, Mr. Habib demands an extra $100,000 to sell the house that he has owned for just a day back to Martin.

GEORGE BANKS: You want me to take out a loan on something I owned free and clear just twenty-four hours ago?

MR. HABIB: Well, that is up to you, George. Your park, your fence, your memories.

JACK SHAHEEN: Now, if you looked at the other Father of the Bride films -- Elizabeth Taylor, Spencer Tracy -- there were no Arabs or Arab Americans. So why does Disney inject these horrific sort of offensive characters in Father of the Bride, Part 2? It’s the same reason that in Gladiator the slave traders who kidnap Russell Crowe and bring him back to Rome are Arabs. I mean, this is ridiculous. I mean, why does Hollywood inject Arabs, scenes of Arabs and/or slurs demeaning Arabs in movies having nothing to do with the Middle East?

So, you're sitting like I am, for example, watching Back to the Future, about a mad scientist. And yet, early on in the film, we see these ugly inept Libyans with machine guns in a parking lot trying to gun down the protagonist. I mean, why? This movie wasn’t about the future. It was the same old stereotyping from the past. "

snip:"JACK SHAHEEN: You see the oily sheikh in Spielberg's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. You see the money-grubbing sheikh who’s out to commit all kinds of terrorism and launch a missile in Ernest in the Army.

SHEIKH: Gentlemen, behold my special club, the pluton missile. With it, I will bring the infidels to their knees and be leader in the Arab world.

JACK SHAHEEN: One of the myths in the ’70s was that the Arabs are coming over, buying up chunks of America. And, of course, this was reflected in the cinema

HOWARD BEALE: That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back!

JACK SHAHEEN: One of my favorite movies of all time, racist though it may be, is Network, about commercial television.

TV ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, let’s hear it! How do you feel?

AUDIENCE: We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!

JACK SHAHEEN: Network features a TV anchor rising to super stardom. How? He unleashes wild rants against the system on the air. But he directs at Arabs who he says are buying up America.

HOWARD BEALE: They’re buying it for the Saudi Arabian investment corporation! They’re buying it for the Arabs!

JACK SHAHEEN: The anchor, Howard Beale, calls on the American people to rise up and stop the Arab buyout of his TV network.

HOWARD BEALE: Listen to me, God damn it! The Arabs are simply buying us! There’s

snip:"JACK SHAHEEN: This kind of anger, the anger born of fear, all of it in response to a perceived conspiracy and threat by a specific group of people, well, we’ve seen and heard this before. If we look at the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazis, at its core is an identical type of economic threat. This economic myth even made its way into children's books. Sadly, the popular image of Jews in Nazi propaganda resembles the popular image of Arabs in some of our most beloved Hollywood movies, the only difference being that the Arab usually wears a robe and headdress.

To solidify Washington's connection with Hollywood, simply look at the films produced in cooperation with the Department of Defense, showing our men and women in the Armed Forces killing Arabs at random. Like Iron Eagle, where a teenager goes over and bombs up an Arab country, you know, just learns how to fly a jet overnight. And then, of course, Navy Seals, where Charlie Sheen goes over to Lebanon and obliterates scores of Arabs. "

link to listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/19/reel_bad_arabs_how_hollywood_vilifies

.

[msmcghee]

70. Show me where I ever suggested . .

. . that some author should not be quoted in this forum because he or she was bigoted, antisemitic or racist.

Or, where where I ever suggested that any member of this forum should be censored for making statements that I judged to be bigoted, antisemitic or racist.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Go ask someone who said you suggested that instead of bothering me about it...

If you hadn't already admitted in another thread that yr not interested in engaging in constructive and civil discussion with me, I'd ask you to actually address my post and explain why you think there is such a contrasting attitude among some people when it comes to bigotry against Arabs/Muslims and Jews. But asking you to try to address a sincere question would be a complete waste of time, so I won't :)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. You are a piece of work.

My hubby's family is actually small. They are refugees who lived in a camp in Gaza Strip. Through amazing hard work, sacrifice and discipline, they managed to put 5 kids through college, even though it meant eating meat once a week to do so. 3 have PhDs in scientific disciplines. One is a medical doctor.

They all work hard not only for a homeland based on the rule of law, but to make the world a better place for everyone.

Their level of sacrifice and discipline could be a model for any people in any country, about what you can achieve through your own hard work.

What have you done for peace lately, other than your important work spewing anti-Palestinian racism on the prosemite hate site?

Shame on you for your snide insinuation.

ON EDIT: BTW, what is your own connection to this conflict? I've been open about my own. Of course that means I'm vulnerabable to cheap shots such as yours, insinuating that my family share those european anti-semitic beliefs.

[msmcghee]

53. I really was insinuating nothing about your family.

You refer to your family frequently to support your conclusions.

So, I asked how your family would feel about (The "Seeds of Hate" described in the OP).

From your inside view, does your family feel any regrets that this very base form of antisemitism is so thoroughly embedded in Arab views of the ME conflict?

Do they see that as an impediment to peace at all?

Are they working to set the record straight?

It seems to me that any liberal peace-loving person would have no problem with those question.

You didn't answer them - which I guess is an answer.

***************************************

My background is that I am a liberal who prefers peaceful, non-violent and non-racist solutions to problems in the world.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Yeah, just like you didn't insinuate that PM isn't a liberal peace-loving person...

Gotta admit that yr fixation with her family to the point that this is the third post where you've demanded answers about her family (who are after all none of yr fucking business) while ignoring any question put to you is a bit on the creepy side. If you ask someone a 'question' about their family and they don't answer, it's a safe bet they're not answering, not because they're not a liberal peace-loving person, but because they don't have any desire to discuss personal things like their family with you...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. I wonder if your fellow pro-Israel posters agree with your sentiments.

Do you guys believe it is incumbent upon Palestinians who are struggling to make ends meet living under siege in Gaza, or under occupation in the WB, to work to "set the record straight?"

I'm curious as to how widely held McGee's liberal views are.

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

For the record, I can't say that my relatives have joined the Gaza branch of the ADL, but I find it amazing that people who have had their land stolen, who've been imprisoned for nothing, who have been abused in countless hideous ways by the IDF, who have been locked up like animals in a cage DON'T believe the European-created ugly crap about Jews. If ever there were a situation in which people might be expected to believe the worst about their enemies, it would be this.

They are how, however, quite clear about the evil of the occupation, life under siege, and the multi-decade denial of their human rights.

Just like intelligent people everywhere, they are able to distinguish between racist garbage, and legitimate, deserved and accurate criticism of a political system.

Does that answer your "question?"

[LeftishBrit]

65. I suppose I'm a 'pro-Israel poster' though not a gung-ho one...

but:

'Do you guys believe it is incumbent upon Palestinians who are struggling to make ends meet living under siege in Gaza, or under occupation in the WB, to work to "set the record straight?"'

No. In fact, I think it's a totally unrealistic demand.

On similar grounds, I think that expecting Israeli Jews and Palestinians to live together peacefully in a single binational state right now is an unrealistic demand - in fact basically the *same* unrealistic demand - and that a two-state solution is the only realistic possibility right now.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

71. Your question is in the form of an accusation. Kind of as if I were to ask you to explain to

me "Why are you so bigoted against Arabs?" It's based on the assumption you are bigoted and then asked you to explain it, whether or not it's your view. I'm sure if anyone did that, you'd be jumping up and down screaming injustice.

[msmcghee]

73. Well, they don't ask me that here.

They just say it.

And I don't jump up and down screaming "injustice".

I write very carefully worded posts encouraging people to think about what's going on in their posts and how accusations of bigotry affect the forum and our ability to have rational discussions.

[breakaleg]

74. Hmm. Perhaps it doesn't look the same when looking from the inside out.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

76. What an ignorant reply.

Never in my life have I said "the Jews" are the problem of anything.
Nor have I ascribed that view to my in-laws.

How dare you put those words in my mouth.

[msmcghee]

79. The only word in my post that had quotation marks . .

. . around it was "oppressed" which is one you use frequently. In fact, it seems to be a constant theme in your posts. For just a few examples, . .

"I reiterate. Palestinians are oppressed and denied basic human rights, not because they pursued those goals incorrectly, but because it's Israeli policy."

"The group in power has created a system in which the oppressed group will never be able to receive the full complement of human rights, including the right to self-determination, which most citizens of the world enjoy."

"Why is it unthinkable to ask Jewish Israelis to give up special rights to accommodate those they’ve oppressed for decades?"

"People who are oppressed by national groups don't have to be "perfect" to warrant our solidarity."

"Zionist colonization is not the preserve of a fanatical fringe in Israel -- it is fundamental to the state's identity and practice. As Martin Luther King said: 'Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.' "

"One could look at my life of part-time work and full-time motherhood and see me as oppressed, and try to "rescue" me."

"I think we can debate whether oppressed groups have the right to use violent forms of resistance. "

"I'm not saying there is no hating of Jews among Palestinians. I think it's arrogant to expect the oppressed to think positively of their oppressors."

My impression is that the innocent Palestinians are always the victims and the Jews are always the cruel oppressors in your posts - and that such oppression justifies whatever violent means the Palestinians wish to use to cast off their oppression.

Playing the "victim of oppression" seems to be an important theme that you use continuously. That's OK if you think that's a good way to debate your views. But then, when someone points that out you only confirm things when your response is to play the victim again.

Would you like some more quotes - or is that enough "oppression" for now?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

80. I don't blame "the Jews" for anything.

Plenty of blame lays at the feet of the Israeli gov't.

This discussion isn't some game like it seems to be for you. If you cannot admit that Palestinians are oppressed economically, politically and in terms of human rights, you need your head examined.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[msmcghee]

83. I was editing that post and then the phone rang and . .

. . didn't get back to this for quite a while. I don't remember what the deleted post was like, but this is the edited version I was working on:

***********************************

I've never doubted that the Palestinians are oppressed. We disagree on whether Israel causes it or if they cause their own oppression. I believe they cause their own oppression by relentlessly attacking Israeli civilians and teaching their children to hate Jews and teaching young children things like it would be good to "kill many Jews" when they grow up. (Video link on request.)

Not that not all Palestinians do this, but it is generally common in their society, in their schools and on their television programs, to the extent that virtually all Palestinians are aware of the violent stance of their leadership toward Israel and a significantly large number of Palestinians approve of that stance and share that view.

This is based on voluminous evidence - such as the last election results (Hamas), the Hamas Charter, the Fatah Charter, many recordings of Palestinain speakers in Arabic as well as Palestinian TV shows - and especially the almost complete absence of video clips, classroom guides or other evidence showing Palestinian children being taught the virtues of living in peace with their Jewish neighbors. (Again, links on request if your really want to see this stuff.)

It is disingenuous IMO for someone who relentlessly attacks and kills the civilians of a sovereign state to then play the victim - especially when that state uses largely non-violent measures to stop the attacks. Measures like barriers, fences, checkpoints, etc.

I take your posts very seriously. I don't want to see Palestinians suffer. That's why I try to accurately point out the reasons why they are suffering so maybe it can be ended.

[msmcghee]

85. This is a serious issue, so I'm adding some information to back up . .

. . what I said. This is from the Government of Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and it is their careful attempt to answer this question . .

How does incitement harm peace?

There is a direct connection between anti-Israeli or antisemitic incitement and terrorism. The extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination that is so pervasive in Palestinian society nurtures a culture of hatred that, in turn, leads to terrorism.

The Palestinian education system, media, literature, songs, theater and cinema have been mobilized for extreme anti-Israeli indoctrination, which at times degenerates into blatant antisemitism. This incitement to hatred and violence is pervasive in Palestinian society, particularly in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. It exists in nursery schools and kindergartens, youth movements, schools, universities, mosque sermons, and street demonstrations. Incitement creates a culture of hatred and violence, which in turn provides fertile ground for terrorism and murder.

Incitement against Israel has many faces. It begins by totally ignoring the very existence of the State of Israel. Maps in schools and universities do not bear even the name of Israel, nor a large number of its cities and towns. Beyond that, inciters extol the names and deeds of the suicide bombers, name football teams after them, and hold the terrorists up as models to be emulated. Incitement includes antisemitic cartoons that use the same kind of motifs and imagery that were used against the Jews during the Nazi era.

This phenomenon bodes ill for the next generation, educated to worship symbols of death and destruction. Children, such as those in Hamas-controlled Gaza, who have been taught from the earliest age to hate, kill and destroy are a tragedy for their own people and a potential danger for others.

The question that must be asked is what kind of future does the industry of incitement offer the next generation, which is growing up learning to hate. Will that young generation be capable of thinking in terms of peace, of good neighborliness, of tolerance and compromise? Can Palestinian society create the new state of mind that is needed for peace, which is much more than just signing a peace treaty?

The many attempts to bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict are known, not coincidentally, as the peace process. The transition from a state of war to a state of peace is not the result of just a one-time diplomatic act of signing an agreement. Rather it is a process that continues over time, a process that demands mutual efforts to change positions, values, and the perception of the former enemy. It requires a transition to a new paradigm, the creation of a new state of mind.

One cannot ignore the intensity of the emotions that exist on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East. Feelings of deep anger and frustration exist on Israel's side as well. But there is a huge difference between feeling anger and frustration, on the one hand, and promoting a culture of hatred, on the other.

Unlike a large part of Palestinian society, Israeli society sees peace as the noblest of goals, its highest of aspirations on both the individual and national level. The desire for peace, for calm and for the normalization of day-to-day life is at the very center of Israel's being and culture. The many thousands of songs, books, artistic works, and articles that have been written about peace in Israel, since the very establishment of the state, are too numerous to mention. Peace is an important core value, the greatest dream of every mother and father, the embodiment of the Zionist idea which envisages Israel living in peace and cooperation with all its neighbors.

There is no legitimate reason why Israeli children learn about peace and coexistence in their schools, while at the same time Palestinian children are learning to honor the suicide bombers and jihad. Those who desire peace should educate for peace, and not promote hatred and murder.

The Palestinians' vehement anti-Israel rhetoric has had a crippling impact throughout the region on efforts for peace. The intense coverage of the Palestinian perspective of events and incitement from Palestinian spokespersons have enflamed anti-Israeli sentiments in Arab countries, even influencing many pro-peace Arab states to downgrade their ties with Israel. Palestinian incitement causes violence in the short term, while in the long term it reduces the chances for peace and reconciliation between Israel and its neighbors.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

86. ROTFLOL! You are some sower of seeds, all right.

Unlike a large part of Palestinian society, Israeli society sees peace as the noblest of goals, its highest of aspirations on both the individual and national level. The desire for peace, for calm and for the normalization of day-to-day life is at the very center of Israel's being and culture...


Thanks for that government report. Hopefully, if they keep saying it someone might believe it!

[msmcghee]

87. Well, at least this is what they say about it.

By making an official statement they are making themselves subject to criticism by any state who wishes to point out their inconsistencies in following what they said. You, or anyone in this forum can do that do.

Now, you are welcome to show me what the Palestinain government in Gaza says about peace with Israel - and we'll compare the two if you like.

[msmcghee]

95. As you say . .

"Hopefully, if they keep saying it someone might believe it! "

That strategy does seem to be working for the Palestinian "narrative". The difference is in the message that each side seems compelled to spread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

88. if one was highly critical of the Syrian Government, or the Norwegian Government or the

Government of Philippines -- EVEN if their rage against the Syrian Government, the Norwegian Government or the Government of the Philippines appeared to many people to be fierce and strident, EVEN if that rage seemed extreme to some people and EVEN if some of their complaints seemed to some observers (especially those on the other side) to be biased and one-sided -- would any sane person suggest that the motivation of most or all such fierce condemnation was motivated by a racist contempt for Syrian people, Norwegian people or Filipino people?

There is a very, very simple principle here. Governments, political organizations and political parties are fair game to democratically minded people. Political systems and entrenched policies are fair game to democratically minded people.

Language which degrades, berates, belittles, insults or abuses peoples and their cultures as a people...is at least bigoted and is usually racist.

And I certainly do agree that any such language coming from either side is an impediment to peace and justice.

[bemildred]

64. Why exactly then do you feel that her family should feel any "regrets"?

What have they done to feel regret about?
Why is it up to them to "set the record straight"?
Why is anyone who views the matter differently not "peace loving"?

[LeftishBrit]

66. To be honest, I think that many people would have problems...

with being asked what 'regrets' their families might have about the conflict; and it's not a matter of whether one is liberal.

I would feel uncomfortable if people asked me whether my Israeli relatives have 'regrets' about serving in the IDF, for example; though I wouldn't mind just being asked what their opinions are (very varied from far-left to one who supports the Likud). I would feel uncomfortable if I was asked whether my immediate family feel 'regrets' that our country went into Iraq (yes, they do, but I'd still rather be allowed to choose to give such info myself!)

[msmcghee]

84. I did not ask "what regrets . .

. . her family felt". I asked if they felt any regrets about what the OP was discussing. I was curious about how average Palestinians might feel about such "Seeds of Hate" being spread. At least criticize what I said.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Yeah, it's the bit about asking if her family feels regret over antisemitism that I thought was bad.

As a rule people who aren't involved in something aren't asked if they feel regret over it. Regret and remorse are what people feel for actions *they* have carried out or views they hold. If anyone were to ask me if I felt regret for the views of some neo-nazi skinhead group, I'd be offended because a question like that is placing responsibility on me for their views...

[richards1052]

56. I'm disappointed Progressive Muslim responded to your insulting, condescending snark

From your inside view, does your family feel any regrets that this very base form of antisemitism is so thoroughly embedded in Arab views of the ME conflict?

Do they see that as an impediment to peace at all?

Are they working to set the record straight?

No one here should have to answer for members of their own family. I can't think of anything more insulting than dragging one's family into a political debate. I don't care whether someone refers to their family or not in posting. YOu have no right to ask him what his family's attitudes are toward anything & especially not whether they're working on behalf of whatever propagandistic attitude you might have toward the I-P conflict.

Of all yr low blows this is one of the lowest.

[msmcghee]

69. So sorry about your disappointment.

You'll get over it. ;)

"I can't think of anything more insulting than dragging one's family into a political debate."

Then you might ask her why she does it so frequently.

"Of all yr low blows this is one of the lowest."

You seem to be acquiring an accent. :rofl:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. No, it isn't. Regretable, but not criminal.

Racial prejudice is unpleasant, but it should *never* be criminalised.

Incidentally, if you were to list the most prevalent prejudices in the UK then the top ones would, by a mile, be anti-arab/anti-Muslim prejudice (two groups, but to a large extent a single prejudice), and anti-immigrant prejudice; anti-semitism would come quite a long way down, well below prejudices against groups like homosexuals and blacks. Moreover, it's rarer still among non-Muslim Britons - even the far right mostly prefer to go after immigrants and Muslims, not Jews, nowadays, and much - not, I regret, quite all - of what gets branded anti-semitic in the British left is perfectly acceptable criticism of Israel, with nothing anti-semitic about it.

It's funny how a little thing like a holocaust can render a prejudice that's gone unchecked for centuries suddenly unfashionable...

[Vegasaurus]

12. I don't doubt that anti-semitism is far less than anti-Muslim sentiment in England

That's true in the US too, although I have witnessed and personally experienced anti-semitism in the US.

The point of the article wasn't about the US or England though, but about the virulent anti-semitism that is rampant throughout the arab world. Even the worst anti-Muslim sentiment in the west couldn't even hold a fraction of a candle to the anti-semitism in the middle east.

All racial prejudice is bad, but one is a typical part of the media's presentation of an entire ethnic group, whereas it isn't publicly tolerated in the west. Muslims rioted over a likeness of Mohammed being used in a cartoon, and yet I could share (but I can't, here on I/P of the DU) incredibly racist, horrible anti-semitic cartoons from the Arab press.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Prejudices are not a crime, but discrimination and violence are, or should be

I would say that in Britain the big prejudices are (1) racism; (2) anti-immigrant bigotry. The two are closely related, but not the *same* thing: e.g. our newest significant immigrant group is East Europaeans, especially Poles; and, despite being white and mostly Christian, they come in for lots of prejudice.

Anti-Muslim prejudice is significant; but IMO often tends to be secondary to the first two. I think that there is a lot of 'secondary Islamophobia' where certain people are not so much against certain immigrants and descendant of immigrants because they are Muslim; they are against Islam because it is practiced by some groups of immigrants.

Antisemitism has always been and probably always will be a problem here; but currently less than the other forms of bigotry that I've mentioned, and less than in some other Europaean countries.

But that's Britain. In the Middle East, most people are not going to be prejudiced against Muslims (though they can be prejudiced against rival Muslim sects!); they are more likely to be prejudiced against non-Muslims, and, so it seems, especially Jews. What is interesting here is not just that there *is* a lot of antisemitism in the Middle East - that is pretty obvious - but that so much of it seems to come from old Europaean and American sources. I knew the 'Protocols' were readily available in the Middle East, but I was still a little surprised that Henry Ford's book is too.

How did this incredibly nasty stuff spread and cross-fertilize so effectively worldwide? Is it all still the direct result of Nazi propaganda during the last war; or is it being enhanced now, e.g. by the easy availability of vile internet sites? If one knew, perhaps one could find more ways, both of combatting it, and of finding ways to spread more positive attitudes (e.g. anti-war views) across the world!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. People believe what they want to believe.

Anti-semitism is prevalent among Muslims for a variety of reasons - the most obvious being the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. I suspect that the availability of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion et al is as much a symptom than a cause - demand creates supply.

[Vegasaurus]

20. The Protocols was originally published in 1905

before there ever was a state of Israel. The conceptual inspiration for the Protocols can be traced back to the French Revolution period.

Again, the Palestinians are the pawns of the Arab world. There has been dissemination of this hated book in the middle east (and Europe) since well before Israel existed. It isn't as if the I/P conflict is the reason that the Protocols is so widely read in the Arab countries, although clearly the conflict adds fuel to fire.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Was it popular among Arabs at the time, though?

My impression is that it was orginally popular in Europe and Russia.

[LeftishBrit]

27. There was certainly antisemitism in the Arab countries in the 19th century...

according to Martin Gilbert and other historians. My impression from limited reading - and I'm no expert on this topic! - is that it was not specifically linked to Islam at that time, and that a lot of it came from Arab Christians.

Of course, what country wasn't antisemitic in the 19th century!

What I don't know is when Arab antisemitism started to be so influenced by the Europaean variety. What's striking is not just that there *is* antisemitism in the Middle East, but that it is so affected by this particular originally-Europaean 'the Jews control the world' myth. This is not an intrinsic part of all racism. So far as I know, most people who are prejudiced against black people, Indians, or East Europaean immigrants, or, in the USA, Mexicans, nevertheless do not accuse them of secretly controlling the world. This seems to be specifically characteristic of antisemitism - or am I wrong?

[Vegasaurus]

28. No, you are not wrong

For example, an article published by the governmental newspaper al-Akhbar on February 3, 2002) stated, “All the evils that currently affect the world are the doings of Zionism. This is not surprising, because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were established by their wise men more than a century ago, are proceeding according to a meticulous and precise plan and time schedule, and they are proof that even though they are a minority, their goal is to rule the world and the entire human race.”

This is endemic, day in and day out.

Yes, the roots of the Protocols rhetoric and following was certainly Russia and Europe, but it is the second most published book in the Arab world (I think I read that...I have to check that to see if it is fact).

on edit:
"The book was publicly recommended by Presidents Nasser and Sadat in Egypt, President Arif of Iraq, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, and various other monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, and other political and intellectual leaders. "

"In March 1970, a Lebanese newspaper placed the Protocols first on its list of nonfiction bestsellers."

"The Protocols has been translated into Arabic more than into any other language."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. If you were looking for material for antisemitism in the mid-20th century

then the European brand was the obvious one to turn to, I'd think.

If the root of your anger is international support for Israel, then allegations of international conspiracies also come naturally.

Also, an awful lot of racism takes the form of asserting that one race is intellectually inferior to another. The large number of prominent Jewish academics means that if you want to plausibly racially abuse Jews you need to find another avenue.

[Vegasaurus]

30. Not to beat the dead horse, Donald

but there was talk of Jews controlling the banks, media, world, long before there was an Israel, or international support (that's a good one) for Israel. In other words, the conspiracy theories came before Israel, not the other way around.

Which means, as LD indicated, that the Protocols, etc., has nothing at all to do with Israel, and everything to do with deep anti-semitism, period.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Let me ask the same question again, then.

Was it widespread among arabs or Muslims?

There was undoubtedly a great deal of antisemitism in the West and Russia for centuries before the foundation of Israel, which was nothing to do with Israel

There is undoubtedly a great deal of antisemitism among Arabs and Muslims today.

To provide evidence that this isn't partially (of course there are other causes, too) you'd have to show that Muslim antisemitism wasn't significantly less prevalent before Israel became an issue.

The writing of the protocols has nothing to do with Israel. Their popularity in the Arab world, however, probably does.

[Vegasaurus]

32. I'd agree with your last line

In terms of Arab/Muslim anti-semitism pre-Israel, I don't know the numbers, and I am sure it was worse in the West and Russia.

However, pre-Israel, we know that the Arabs did align with Hitler, and that Jews were persecuted and treated as dhimmi in Arab countries.

The heinous level of anti-semitism in the arab world is clearly much more pronounced since the creation of Israel.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. Israel was already a source of Muslim/Jewish contention before the second world war, wasn't it?

Although it hadn't been founded, there was a non-trivial and fairly violent movement agitating for the foundation of a Jewish state where Israel now is back at least as far as the 30s, and I think earlier, if I recall correctly.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. it is simply not correct at all to say "the Arabs aligned with Hitler" that is pure anti-historic

nonsense.

The fact that the Mufti like many people throughout the British colonial world who were in rebellion against the British had pro-Axis sympathizes (out of a "my enemies enemy") principle did not make the Palestinian national movement an allie of the Nazis. But the Mufti was not the entirety the Palestinian movement. There were thousands of Palestinians who fought on the side of the allies against the Nazis.

And attacks especially by the Irgun and the Stern Gang against British interest certainly kept going on while Britain was in a state of war against Germany. Still it would be an outrageous exaggeration to describe either side as allies of Hitler.

And the personal relationship the Mufti had with Hitler were a few photo ops and propaganda broadcast. It was common throughout the entire colonial system that many anti-Colonial leaders sided with the Axis. And the ones who didn't were frequently Stalinist.

Two former Israeli Prime Ministers; Begin and Shamir were leaders in Irgun and the Stern Gang who carried out attacks against the British while the British were in a state of war with Nazi-Germany. And they did indeed seek Axis support.

But neither side can rationally be called allies of Hitler. Either claim would be pure nonsense.

This article from the Simon Wiesenthal Center -- hardly a "pro-Palestinian" source:


Palestine and Nazi Germany
by Sara Reguer

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105

snip:"Germany's Palestine policy between 1933 and 1940 was based on a fundamental acceptance of the post-World War I status quo in the Middle East. For different reasons, the Hitler regime continued in the footsteps of the various Weimar governments by identifying German interests with the postwar settlement in Palestine. That settlement embodied a growing Jewish presence and homeland in Palestine, as well as the establishment of British imperial power over Palestine and the Middle East. It also represented a denial of Arab claims to national self-determination and independence in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. Between 1933 and 1940, German policy encouraged and actively promoted Jewish emigration to Palestine, recognized and respected Britain's imperial interests throughout the Middle East and remained largely indifferent to the ideals and aims of Arab nationalism. (p. 201)"

Snip:"The relationship between Nazi Germany and the Palestine Question of the 1930s is widely misunderstood. Except for a few scholars here and there, this subject lends itself to a pervasive kind of misconception: we tend to read the Nazi policies of World War II back into the 1930s. The Nazis' "Final Solution of the Jewish Question," their pro-Arab attitudes, and their battle against Great Britain makes it difficult for most of us to imagine that before the war the Nazis, even the SS, aided the illegal immigration of Jews into Palestine, and that Hitler so feared British displeasure that he absolutely prohibited German support for the Arabs of the Palestine mandate. Yet this is exactly what Francis R. Nicosia has described and proved in his excellent scholarly study.

Nicosia clearly shows in his impressive introductory chapter that Germany's policy on Palestine remained unchanged from the late Empire through the Weimar Republic. German policy makers supported Zionist efforts because they recognized that Zionism could be an effective instrument of German foreign policy. During the 1930s, the Nazis continued this traditional policy because they wanted to use Zionism and please the British.

snip:"Most Arabs never realized that the Nazis viewed them as racially inferior and that Germany was directly responsible for the increase in Jewish immigration during the 1930s. It was the Arabs, especially Palestinian Arab leaders like Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who openly made their pro-German feelings known. But Nicosia's analysis of the scholarly biographies of the Mufti shows that these biographies cannot be relied on for an accurate account of Nazi Germany's involvement in Palestine (p. 250, n. 3). Like others, I had relied on these biographies; now I must, however, agree with Nicosia's conclusion that Germany was not involved in the Arab Jewish conflict in Palestine of 1936-1937.

link to full article:

Palestine and Nazi Germany
by Sara Reguer

Francis R. Nicosia. The Third Reich and the Palestine Question. Austin: Texas University Press, 1985. xiv, 319 pages.

link:

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105


.

[Vegasaurus]

41. Interesting reading

Thanks for posting it.

There is, however, plenty of historical evidence (beyond what you call a "photo opp") that supports the alternate point of view.

[Lurking Dem]

43. One aspect I think is overlooked

in this is there were concentration camps in the Vichy run governments - Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

[Englander]

92. Can't you get anything right?

They were labour camps, not concentration camps, and they weren't in Tunisia;

>snip

Others (Struthof and Colonial Empire)

The Nazis also opened Struthof in Alsace (in the part annexed by the Reich). Although not an internment camp, the Winter Velodrome was used during the July 1942 Vel'd'hiv raid. It was also used during the Algerian War (see below).

In the colonial empire, Vichy created in Algeria and in Morocco labour camps ("camps de travail") for Jews in:

* Abadla, Algeria
* Ain el Ourak
* Bechar, Algeria
* Berguent
* Bogari
* Bouarfa
* Djefa
* Kenadsa
* Meridja
* Missour, Morocco
* Tendrara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps_in_France#Others_.28Struthof_and_Colonial_Empire.29



Work camps created by the Government of Vichy in Maroco and Algeria. Thousands of jews were sent to these camps by the French pro-nazi government of Petain:
# Abadla
# Ain el Ourak
# Bechar
# Berguent
# Bogari
# Bouarfa
# Djelfa
# Kenadsa
# Meridja
# Missour
# Tendrara

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/cclist.html

[Lurking Dem]

93. Oh.

>>They were labour camps, not concentration camps, and they weren't in Tunisia;<<

Good G-d.

concentration camp

Literally a temporary or permanent encampment where people may be gathered together from a wide area to ‘concentrate’ them in one place. The name was first used by the Spanish in Cuba to describe the technique of withdrawing the civilian population from the countryside to deny support and ‘crowd cover’ to guerrillas. Both Britain and the USA employed the same technique in the Second Boer War and the Philippines insurrection respectively. While not intended, the massing of people without adequate sanitation and medical services led to epidemics in these camps, giving the term an early and ominous link with genocide. Not to be confused with internment camps such as those employed to quarantine Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, concentration camps are now associated with, at best, punishment and forced labour, as in what Solzhenitsyn called the ‘Gulag archipelago’ of Stalin's USSR. At worst the concentration camps of Nazi Germany were used for the systematic extermination of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Russian prisoners of war, and a variety of others.

Approximately 5,000 Tunisian Jewish men were conscripted for almost forty detention camps and forced labor areas near the front lines. These camps were run by both the Germans and the Italians; the most important one was the military port at Bizerte, under German control. Conditions in the camps were awful, particularly those run by the Germans. The Jewish notables set up committees to improve the lives of the internees by classifying workers as sick and helping them escape. This became progressively easier because discipline in the camps broke down as the Axis hold on Tunisia weakened.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007312

Q. Which North African countries were affected?

A. The principal areas were Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya�. There were no extermination camps, but the persecution that existed in Europe in all the other ways extended to these countries. For example, there are only two places...where Jews were stripped of their citizenship: Germany and Algeria.

(from interview with Robert Satloff who wrote a book about Khalid Abdul Wahhab, a hero of Tunis who rescued Jews.) http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=334

During the German occupation of Tunisia (November 1942 -May 1943), they suffered deportations, forced labor, and slaughter. The Pillar of Salt, which chronicles the coming of age of a young Jewish Tunisian boy, Alexandre Modekhai Benillouche, records Memmi's own experience in a German work camp, from which he managed to escape. Approximately five thousand Jews were put into work camps in over 30 locations across Tunisia; with the declining military situation of the Germans, many prisoners escaped....

From the book, Pillar of Salt by Albert Memmi

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Lurking Dem]

97. *crickets*

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

100. Labour camps *are* concentration camps...

the extermination camps with gas chambers were the extreme end of the scale of concentration camps. Not the only form.

[Lurking Dem]

103. "Extermination" ..."Concentration"...

apparently my provided definition didn't pass muster.

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. Nazi occupied countries in Europe had concentration camps

That is certainly not evidence of British or general European alignment with Hitler

Anymore than concentration camps in Nazi occupied countries in North Africa are indicative of a general Arab alignment with Hitler - much less a Palestinian-Arab alignment with Hitler in British Mandate Palestine - something the Palestinian-Arabs would certainly not have been even remotely or indirectly involved with.

That is not to say that the Axis did not have sympathizers in the Arab world just as they certainly had sympathizers in Europe, especially Eastern Europe...and of course sympathizers throughout the entire colonial world usually following a naive, "my enemy's enemy" approach.

Still thousands of Palestinian Arabs did join with the British in fighting on their side against the Nazis.

Much of what people regarded as political pragmatism at the time -- all over the world -- would certainly sound dumbfounding in retrospect.

Again from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:


"Nicosia examines the role of the SS, and it is noteworthy that there was some cooperation between the SS and the Revisionist Zionists in the period 1933-1937. There is of course some logic to this, since the SS recognized that the Revisionists were vigorously pursuing Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine. This too was the rationale behind the German government's support of the Zionists' agricultural retraining program; incidentally, Nicosia thoughtfully provides a map showing the distribution of the retraining centers (Appendix 11, p. 217). In retrospect, it is difficult for us to imagine that the Nazis encouraged Zionists from Palestine to enter Germany, teach Hebrew, educate German Jews about Palestine, and even display the blue and white Jewish national flag; the Revisionist Zionists even wore uniforms. Clearly this was all done for the promotion of purely German domestic and economic ends, with no concern for the Palestine situation itself.

Hitler's attitude toward the British Empire was a crucial factor determining his approach to the Palestine question. "Hitler's Englandpolitik during the 1930s was the single most important factor that influenced the attitudes and policy of his regime toward the Arab world in general and Arab aspirations in Palestine in particular" (p. 83). To support the Arab cause in Palestine would have alienated Great Britain, which saw Palestine as strategically important at a time when Hitler was trying to obtain an Anglo-German alliance. It also would have violated racial ideology by supporting an inferior race (the Arabs) against a superior race (the British)."

link: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395105

.

[Vegasaurus]

104. There is far more evidence indicting the Grand Mufti

of colluding with the Nazis, including both Hitler and Eichmann. He also helped organize the pro-Nazi Rachid Ali officers' coup against the British government in Iraq as well as death camps in Bosnia, among other activities (not to mention pogroms he began in 1920, to expel Jews from Palestine).

Perhaps ALL Arabs weren't pro-Nazi, but let's not pretend that Haj Amin al-Husseini wasn't very clear about his alliances.

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. the Mufti certainly did align with Germany during World War II

I would be suspicious about some of the claims about the extent of his involvement. That I have not seen in any nonpartisan sources.

But yes, the Mufti like many anti-colonial leaders around the world was clearly sympathetic with the Axis and at the very least a source for propaganda.

One of the major problems that the Palestinian movement has always faced from the very beginning and up until now is lack of a unified leadership. The Mufti was deeply despised by a large sections of the Palestinian-Arab community for a number of reason. It would be impossible to say that his point of view represented Palestinians as a whole during World War II - especially with thousands of Palestinians fighting on the side of the British against the Nazis.

[bemildred]

106. He was a leftover hack from the Ottoman period.

The whole "Mufti" thing was part of the Ottoman ruling apparatus. He was a reactionary. Who knew that reactionaries would like fascism? Thank you for bringing up all the Arabs that fought with the Allies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. a very good book which deals with all the figures and political

wheeling and dealing that went on between the various prominent Palestinian-Arab leaders and families at the time is as well as in more recent years:

The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Rashid Khalidi (Paperback - Sep 3, 2007) Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Cage-Palestinian-Struggle-Statehood/dp/0807003093/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200070700&sr=1-1

The book is basically a critical political history of the Palestinian movement and explores the question as to why has it has failed to achieve any of its major goals. It pretty much covers the history of the Palestinian movement from the turn of the century up until recent years.

I might add -- The Magistrate - also recommends this book and he clearly comes from the other side of this debate from myself.

[bemildred]

108. I'll put it on the list. I have had good results with The Magistrate's suggestions.

I guess I would think an explanation was more needed when political movements do work, than when they fail, since that latter is the default expectation. In the case of the Palestinians, I would argue that what would be unusual would have been success, based mostly on the array of forces working against them and the lack of unitary organization which they have suffered from from the beginning. That fragmentation has of course been encouraged by various parties who have see them as a "problem".

I'm reading another history of the area right now, just went through the Ottomans and was getting into the British boondoggles, so it's fresh on my tongue.

[eyl]

54. I have no idea about degree of prevelance

but you might want to study, as an example, the Damascus Blood Libel - a distinctly European anti-semetic trope which appeared in Arab lands well before the 20th century (1850, IINM)

[Lurking Dem]

21. Wrong.

Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Israeli treatment of Palestinians.

That would cause anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist reactions.

Hating JEWS for being JEWS is something else entirely. And holding Jews responsible for the bigotry leveled against the, is something else.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Don't confuse "is" with "should be".

Anti-semitism is not a logical response to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Blaming all Jews for the actions of Israel is irrational. That doesn't mean that people don't do it, though.

Hostility to Israel *shouldn't* cause anti-semitism, but it undoubtedly *has* done.

P.S. what is the word missing from your last line? Palestinians? Israelis?

[Lurking Dem]

37. "m"

word should be "them".

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I have also watched - Schindler's List - on Arabic TV subtitled into Arabic

clearly presented for primarily an Arabic audience.

I have seen and read Uri Avnery's column in a number of Arab newspapers in the Middle East.

Until the emergence of Arab satellite TV such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabia very few Middle Eastern people would have even known that there there were progressive Jewish people who sympathized and empathized with the Palestinians and earnestly sought not only reconciliation between Israel and the wider Arab world but even integration into the Middle East. Now this is becoming well known throughout the Arab world - albeit not fast enough.

It is not unusual for people in a state of conflict to adopt racialist language at times against their political protagonist. In fact is the norm. It took a long time for Irish Catholics and British people to drop the worse of language against each other. In fact it still goes on to some extent. It took a very long time for French speaking Belgiums and Flemish speaking Belgiums to stop demonizing and dehumanizing each other. Now they have a functional working democracy together and for the most part get along fine. At least the worst of the mutual loathing is gone. But some very real animosity still persist.

Hell even given the early history of American-Canadian relationships its not at all uncommon for some Canadians to let drop some ungenerous remarks about Americans as a people.

In my twenty-one years in the Middle East I have certainly heard anti-Jewish comments -- of which no less that 95% to 99% concerned the Israel/Arab and Israel/Palestinian conflict. Sure there is some that is pure anti-Semitism. But almost all of that is fueled by the conflict. I see no reason whatsoever to believe why a just and lasting peace wouldn't greatly reduce this mutual loathing -- just as mutual loathing usually dissipates when the real underlining issues are finally addressed.

I suppose people can believe whatever they want to believe. One on one side can chose to believe, if they insist that Arabs are incorrigible and incapable of reason and compromise. On the other side one can chose to believe, if they insist that Jews and Israelis are incorrigible and incapable of accepting Arabs as equals and dealing with the Arab world justly . Or one can believe that compromise, justice and acceptance of equality are all possible. I would chose to believe the later. After all - what is the alternative? What kind of future does the former offer? -- As someone once said, "we can either learn to live together or we WILL die together. I for one prefer that we LIVE together."

[LeftishBrit]

26. I hope you are right in your last paragraph!

'one can believe that compromise, justice and acceptance of equality are all possible. I would chose to believe the later. After all - what is the alternative? What kind of future does the former offer? -- As someone once said, "we can either learn to live together or we WILL die together. I for one prefer that we LIVE together."'

I also hope that we can all LIVE together, as the alternatives aren't attractive!!!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

35. Beautifully said, Doug. nt

[msmcghee]

36. Something I've been meaning to get off my chest.

Sorry LB - I'm using your post to do it but I think I am on-topic. ;) And I'm sorry this is so long, but if I don't explain myself carefully it will be more easily misconstrued and used to attack me.

One of the problems in dealing with "racism" and "bigotry" in this forum is that people tend to (incorrectly IMO) believe that statements or opinions that they disagree with - that refer to any generalities about different cultures are inherently expressions of racism or bigotry. Those of us on the left of politics are particularly susceptible to this because of our history of fighting American racism and against the Viet Nam War which also had serious racial dimensions. Being opposed to racism and bigotry is seen as part of our social identity. To imply that someone is a racist or bigot is the same as calling them a freeper.

Emotions always determine behavior, sometimes assisted by reason. Where our strongest emotions are concerned, reason is only a tool we use to create intellectual justifications for our emotion-driven behavior. One of the strongest sources of emotion in humans is our identity beliefs. These are things we learn in life to associate with our sense of self. They come in both personal and social flavors which often overlap. Because of the added strong emotions of wanting to belong and wanting to be seen as virtuous by other members of our social identity group, we will do things to support our social identity beliefs that we would never do for other reasons. Our social identity includes an instinctive attachment to our close family (those who share our genes) but in the human (thinking) mind expands to include those who look like us, talk like us, share our culture, etc. Most humans learn to walk, talk, dress, support institutional beliefs like religion, etc. specifically to cement our membership in our social identity group.

These forces also include an instinctive distrust or dislike for those who are different from us in some significant ways - especially if they act in any way threatening or not friendly. That's just human nature again and no amount of education or intelligence can change that. We are all very protective of our social identities and the beliefs we hold about the world that define those identities. Identity beliefs are the main reason why groups of people kill other groups of people - which is to say they are the main reason there are wars and strife in the world.

If any social identity group is threatened by another group that has obviously different identity beliefs they are capable of violence against that group. The reason some societies have no problem (or little problem) with Jews - like in the US - is that in our larger culture Jews are not seen as different from non-Jews in any significant ways nor do they express any threatening behavior. They are seen to share our values and they largely do. Until 9/11 the same was pretty much true for Muslims. They seemed different but not in a threatening way. Average Americans go out of our way to avoid racial stereotypes. Yes, we saw Arabs as enemies during Gulf War I but no-one seriously believed that Arab Americans were anything like Saddam's Republican Guards. We even saw Iraq as a secular state as I remember. And that's also how most Americans wanted to see Palestinians. Even after several wars of attrition against Israel by Arabs we bent over backwards to see "both sides" of the conflict.

But then the second Intifada really changed that for our view of Palestinians and 9/11 changed our view of Muslims generally. Suddenly the majority of Americans saw Islamism (and all Arabs and Muslims for that matter) as threats to our social identity. That's exactly how bin Laden and the perpetrators of 9/11 characterized their attack. Hundreds of terrorist attacks and statements since then have strengthened that perception - that Arabs and Muslims are our enemies and want to destroy our social identity. (Remember, emotions are not good at discrimination and strong emotions shut down reason.)

There has been an effort by some elements on the left in America - who also see traditional American values as not part of their own social identity - (and in GB and Europe) to change the status of Jews for the worse for political (not racial) purposes. I'm not sure which leftist values inspire this but I know that I don't share them. I suspect they see capitalism and US foreign policy as sufficiently corrupt that even armed enemies of the US can be their friends. And they see armed friends of the US (like Israel) - as their enemies too. (I also dislike much about US foreign policy but prefer not to demonize another social identity group allied with the US to achieve it.)

Here at DU this leftist tactic mostly takes the form of equating Jews with non-Americanism. Constant references to AIPAC, Jonathon Pollard, the USS Liberty are examples of this. Those threads drip with hatred. (Isn't it about time for another Liberty thread?) Of course the Arab "narrative" adopted for political warfare against Israel is also very useful - hereby Israeli Jews are depicted as jackbooted Imperialists brutally killing and torturing innocent Palestinians - like the Nazis did the Jews. Many of the OP articles posted to this forum carry that tortured theme. American Jews are also depicted as agents in disguise (AIPAC) and supportive of the "jackbooted" tactics (Jewish neocons). Another popular theme is the "affection" that some far right Christian groups have taken for the Jews. Since leftists are mostly atheists who are doubly hated by the far right - that also works to create the impression of Jews being different from us somehow - not sharing our values.

I'm not passing judgment on any of this. I'm just pointing out that what is happening in this forum is mostly a struggle for identity beliefs. It's not really prejudice and racism per se. When social identity groups are in conflict, by definition, it's all about hating or defending one social identity or the other. Here, the Israeli social identity is in mortal combat with the Palestinain social identity. Both of these have religious components but they are secondary to the larger social identities fighting for survival. Then we have the political identity conflicts between the far left and more traditional liberal identities of some members. For some here the I/P conflict is just a convenient vehicle for expressing those leftist identities. And then there are the actual Israeli and Palestinain members (or those who feel those identities sufficiently) who argue both sets of values. I find pelsar's posts so compelling because he's an example of a real Israeli who also holds traditional liberal values and sees the conflict through both windows - defending both his Israeli and his liberal social identities.

I don't think anyone here is actually motivated by what most here think of as classic racism or bigotry. Most here identify with one social identity or the other in this struggle - and are attacking the social identity beliefs of the other and defending the social identity beliefs of their own side. That can be characterized as racism or bigotry because on the surface it is similar. But, what they are really doing is engaging in a conflict for the preservation of their own social identity. Pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies and double standards of the other side is how that's done short of violence. That's not racism or bigotry - even when those flaws, inconsistencies and double standards fall along racial or ethnic lines.

I don't think anyone here actually believes that all Jews - or all Arabs or all Muslims or whatever - have some racial or ethnic characteristics that makes them inferior in some basic way or that its OK to attack and kill them for those differences. I certainly don't and I've said so many times. It's really about defending one's social identity - which in this forum usually line up as pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. The charges of racism and bigotry that so often fly around these threads are just particularly insidious weapons used when one faction wants to discredit the other.

If someone joins who really does hold racially based hatreds, that will become apparent soon enough. One mod has assured me that no-one whom they consider to be racist or bigots are currently members of this forum. Therefore charges (or implications) of racism and bigotry directed at any member or the ideas they express are really a form of bigotry themselves and IMO should not be allowed. These only inflame the thread which is already against the rules. When someone implies that I am a bigot - that does inflame me greatly. If someone truly believes that I (or any other member) is expressing racist beliefs or bigotry in this forum then use the Alert function - but please keep those accusations between you and the mod. Short of Alerting you could also ask for a clarification - in a non-accusatory way. But posting them publicly is a vicious form of personal attack. I think some members employ this tactic habitually. I think that's deplorable and really lowers the quality of the discussion. I wish the mods could see it that way.

To be clear I am not saying that any member should be allowed to post racist or bigoted opinions here. I am saying that if you think they have done that, Alert on them and let the mods deal with it behind the scenes. IMO it should be clearly against the rules to state or imply in a public post that any member is racist or bigoted - or that their posts are.

And this goes also for the censorship of significant people who are engaged in the conflict on the world stage. Even if Dan Pipes had true racist or bigoted motives (which I pretty much doubt, but leave open for now, after reading a lot of his stuff) that should not prevent someone from posting his words here - any more than we should not be able to see the words of Amedinijad or Nasrallah or Walt / Mearsheimer or Finkelstein or Dershowitz. I do expect that if any of these people are quoted here while saying things that are actually racist - then the person quoting them should make it clear, if there's any question, that they do not endorse that racism. OTOH that racism needs to be overt - not some tortured, out-of-context phrase or two. Whatever side they are on - I think all those people have political - not truly racist motives (except maybe Amedidnijad).

Most intelligent people have a need to express complex ideas on this conflict because the conflict is very complex. Complex ideas are the easiest to twist and misinterpret. But all these people do and say things that have a major effect on the conflict and how it plays out. We could hardly have a reasonable discussion about the conflict if we are not allowed to consider the words and opinions of these people - especially if only the pro-Israel side are the voices singled out as racists whose words should not "defile this forum".

I think all of those accusations of racism and bigotry have nothing to do with actually being offended by supposed racism or bigotry (we are all grownups here) and everything to do with shutting up people who represent the opposite view of the conflict. I think the mods, in their understandable desire to keep the forum scrupulously non-racist, are unusually sensitive to accusations of racism from one side against the other and they usually seem to give the benefit of the doubt to the accuser (with some laudable exceptions). That's somewhat understandable given their mission but I think over time that has been noticed and has been incorporated as a tactic by one side to attack the other. (Deliberate baiting to elicit statements that can be interpreted as racist - followed by having the comment deleted - followed by a bit of gloating about how the mods agreed with the accuser regarding the bigotry of the targeted poster.)

I guess I'll probably be attacked now for saying these things but so be it. I think if these guidelines were followed we'd have much better discussions here and less need for fire extinguishers.

<end of rant>

BTW LeftishBrit - I have never felt that your opinion that Pipes is a racist (or close to it) was an implication that I was a racist for disagreeing with you. Your posts are a good example of how easy it is to discuss these volatile issues when the purpose is not to attack the other poster - but to actually discuss the crucial ideas that underlie this conflict.

[LeftishBrit]

38. A couple of random points...

'I think all of those accusations of racism and bigotry have nothing to do with actually being offended by supposed racism or bigotry (we are all grownups here) and everything to do with shutting up people who represent the opposite view of the conflict.'

I think this is sometimes true but not always. Some people do have specific sensitivities; and it may depend on their personal experiences. E.g. people who have personally or vicariously experienced a particular form of bigotry tend to be sensitive to it, and possibly sometimes see it even when it's not there.

'Here at DU this leftist tactic mostly takes the form of equating Jews with non-Americanism. Constant references to AIPAC, Jonathon Pollard, the USS Liberty are examples of this. Those threads drip with hatred.'

I agree; and have noticed this point - not so much on this forum, though sometimes such threads on other forums get relocated here. However I would not really call it a 'leftist' tactic. I would call it an extremely right-wing tactic and viewpoint. Accusations of being 'un-American' were the essence of McCarthyism, and of current right-wing American sentiment. When I post on predominantly American boards not restricted to progressives, I notice a lot of rejection of the views of non-Americans like myself ("Why should we care what foreigners think of us?") and accusations of American liberals/ leftist of being un-American. The implication of Jewish disloyalty/ un-American-ism/ etc. on the board is to me not a leftist attitude as such, but a prime example of left-wing anti-war people being prepared to 'cosy up' in the interests of their cause with right-wing isolationist anti-war people, for whom xenophobia is a central part of their ideology. I think that DU does include, from time to time, a few people who have joined because they are against Bush and the war, but are *not* left or liberal; plus a probably larger number who are prepared to collaborate with the xenophobic Old Right to form a coalition against the war, and who occasionally in my view catch fleas from lying down with dogs! See the exchange between Oberliner and myself earlier on the thread - there is a big danger for people everywhere, on all sides of an issue of allowing themselves to be influenced by racists who share or support their views on important key issues.

[LeftishBrit]

42. To get something off *my* chest at this point...

I have noticed (not specifically on DU) that when the issue of antisemitism is discussed, there is sometimes an assumption that Britain and 'the EU left' are monolithically anti-semitic or at least all anti-Israel, and that anti-semitism is far worse in Britain and the EU than America.

Of course, these things will always depend on the exact circles in which one moves; but it does not accord at all with my own experience. There is, sadly, anti-semitism everywhere. I would say that SOME Europaean countries have a worse problem with it than others (France to some extent; certain East Europaean countries even more so). But with lifelong experience of British life, and a fair bit of contact with America and Americans, I would say that there is little difference in the amount of antisemitism though possibly some in the predominant types. Traditional antisemitism may be a bit more linked to religious prejudice in America and to snobbery in the UK, with xenophobia playing a role in both. Left-wing collaboration with antisemitism in the USA may involve more joining hands with RW isolationist xenophobes, while in Britain it may involve a little more collaboration with sympathizers with Islamism and also possibly with marginal old-left groups that are at rather too few degrees of separation from old Soviet propaganda. However, I definitely do not think that the UK, at least nowadays, is *more* antisemitic than the USA.

In particular, there has been a lot of misrepresentation and exaggeration of attempted boycotts of Israel by British trade unions. There have been some activists who have pushed such boycotts, and may have exaggerated their own influence; but they don't represent large numbers of people, and all these boycotts have either been rejected, reversed, or simply sunk without trace. This doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored, and I was active in opposing such a proposal in my own union; but these attempts really do not represent much of Britain or its 'left'.

[msmcghee]

44. Yeah, you're absolutely right.

Instead of, "'Here at DU this leftist tactic mostly takes the form of equating Jews with non-Americanism. Constant references to AIPAC, Jonathon Pollard, the USS Liberty are examples of this. Those threads drip with hatred." What an obtuse word.

I should have said, "Here at DU this leftist tactic mostly takes the form of equating Jews with the RW. Constant references to AIPAC, Jonathon Pollard, the USS Liberty are examples of this. Those threads drip with hatred." Thanks for catching that.

I said, "I think all of those accusations of racism and bigotry have nothing to do with actually being offended by supposed racism or bigotry (we are all grownups here) and everything to do with shutting up people who represent the opposite view of the conflict."

LB: "I think this is sometimes true but not always. Some people do have specific sensitivities; and it may depend on their personal experiences. E.g. people who have personally or vicariously experienced a particular form of bigotry tend to be sensitive to it, and possibly sometimes see it even when it's not there."

I might have overstated my case by saying "all of those accusations of racism and bigotry". Perhaps "the great majority" would have been more accurate. However, I think a more important point is that if someone wants to participate in a forum where people are seriously discussing a major conflict where real racism forms a large part of the motivation for some of the actors - then they should come to the discussion prepared to give those who disagree with them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusing them of bigotry. (Or, handle it privately with the mods if they are truly offended.)

They should not come to a discussion like this with a huge chip on their shoulder ready to pounce on any statement that could possibly be interpreted as bigotry. I think that people who repeatedly scream "bigotry" every time someone disagrees with them would be happier in forums where they could share their sensitivities with others who are more like themselves.

Perhaps DU expects this to be a forum for the soothing of aggrieved slights and injustices - and anyone actually interested in an objective discussion should not expect more than that. However, that's not what the forum rules say and it's not what the mods tell me to expect.

[LeftishBrit]

45. I think that you were to a large degree right the first time!

I *have* come across people who equate Jews with the RW; but it's fairly unusual, possibly because it is so demonstrably untrue with regard to American Jews. Of course, all antisemitic slurs are untrue; but this is a particularly easy one to disprove. It's easy to find polls that show that Jews vote for Democrats and oppose the Iraq war in higher proportions than members of most other ethnic groups.

The idea that Jews are unpatriotic; more loyal to Israel than to America (even if they've never been to Israel); or get others to fight for them while not being prepared to sacrifice themselves is unfortunately rather commoner, and has obvious roots in right-wing propaganda, especially of the Old Right nationalist variety, currently represented by the likes of Pat Buchanan and worse types like David Duke in America, the British Nationalist Party in the UK and the National Front in France. Most such Old Right nationalists are currently opposed to the Iraq war, facilitating the cross-fertilization of the 'seeds of hate', to grow like weeds even in soil which one would have hoped was preserved against them.

This is a discussion of antisemitism; but I think closely parallel things could be said about other forms of xenophobia.

[LeftishBrit]

59. "They should not come to a discussion... with a huge chip on their shoulder..."

Well, in principle, yes; BUT many people who come to a forum like this will have a personal concern with the conflict - they may be Israelis, or Palestinians, or Jews, or Muslims, etc. I think you are mainly interested in the debate from the point of view of wider politics and relatively abstract principles, so that you sometimes don't imagine what it's like for people who are far more directly involved. My own connections to this particular topic exist but are fairly indirect, so I can usually be fairly cool on this forum; but on issues that I experience more frequently and directly, I'd be much more touchy (to give just one example that has come up on DU, modern conventional medicine has made a big difference to my life and that of family members, and I do get personally upset when ideological alternative-medicine supporters suggest that modern medicine is all a scam and a Big Pharma plot).

It would be great if no one had a 'chip on their shoulder'; but then there probably wouldn't be a conflict to discuss in the first place.

[msmcghee]

72. My complete statement, in context, was . .

However, I think a more important point is that if someone wants to participate in a forum where people are seriously discussing a major conflict where real racism forms a large part of the motivation for some of the actors - then they should come to the discussion prepared to give those who disagree with them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to accusing them of bigotry. (Or, handle it privately with the mods if they are truly offended.)

They should not come to a discussion like this with a huge chip on their shoulder ready to pounce on any statement that could possibly be interpreted as bigotry.

I am surprised that you would characterize that statement so simplistically and without the context that preceded it. Usually you don't mis-characterize my posts to make your point - as so many others do here.

We all get to decide how we relate to others in this forum - at least within the rules. If you think it's fine to make this a 24 hr screaming match, then I hope you enjoy it. I won't be here I assure you. But until then, I'll do what I can to make this a place where rational discussion at least has a chance occasionally.

[LeftishBrit]

75. I don't think it should be a 24-hour screaming forum...

That's not the point at all. I think that if people like those on the forum who have at least some things in common (i.e. being basically liberal and anti-war) cannot negotiate, then how can we expect the far more diverse parties in the Middle East to do so?

I think however that most screaming matches are not, or not merely, about whether someone is bigoted or not. Accusations of racism or bigotry are more a *symptom* of people's indignation than the other way round.

The one time I really lost it on this forum was when someone (not a regular poster; the thread was relocated from another forum) said something like "I don't care if Iran bombs the shit out of Israel". Did I think this was bigoted? Possibly, that wasn't what upset me; I was upset because they were essentially saying that they didn't care if *human beings* like *certain people I know* were bombed. If I didn't know people, including relatives, in Israel, I would have disagreed with the remark but not so emotionally. For that matter, I also know people from Iran, so would also have been personally upset if the remark had been made the other way round. But the point is that: I wasn't screaming because I thought someone was bigoted or immoral in an abstract sense; I was screaming because this was a personal issue for me. The same, I think, is often true of other people - and maybe for more issues.

I don't doubt that there are sometimes people on any forum who just like to turn any form of debate into an extreme sport, or wish to prove their superiority; and I am not a fan of that; but I don't think that's true of the 'vast majority' of cases of emotional response. Some, yes. But not IMO the majority.

[msmcghee]

77. I only suggested that accusations of bigotry against members . .

. .cause a lot of fireworks here and suggested a way to avoid that. If you think such accusations are a good thing and enjoy the fireworks more than I do, fine.

I am not the mod. I was only making a suggestion that I thought might make the forum more useful as a place to discuss ideas. I guess it really comes down to what use you want to put it to.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. Would it be bigoted to say, for example, all Palestinians are right-wing?

It's obviously ignorant and uninformed, but it is racist as well?

[msmcghee]

50. Bad answer - I didn't understand the question. See below. n/t

[msmcghee]

51. Re-reading your question . .

. . I see you are not interested in if I think all Palestinians are right-wing. You really want to know if I think that's a racist statement. Sorry.

OK - I have two answers.

*****************************************

The simple answer:

First, it would have to be in some context and I'd need to know that context to give you a better answer. Even so, I'm having trouble imagining in what context such a statement could be racist - I mean based on a belief that all Palestinians are racially inferior for some reason or deserving of contempt simply for being Palestinian.

Someone might say that all Palestinians are animals (like sons of pigs and apes) or that all Palestinians smell bad. I would call that racist. But, I seldom see statements like that in political discourse. I doubt that I've never seen anything like that in I/P or DU - about Palestinians or any ethnic group.

*****************************************

The more complex answer:

If someone says "all Palestinians are right wing" that seems almost certainly to be part of a political discussion - which is likely to be a dispute over social identity beliefs - as I described in that long post above. In those disputes, which we engage in here all the time, the idea is to defend your own social identity beliefs and discredit your opponent's. That's legitimate debate IMO. There are differences in social identity beliefs well worth debating.

In that context then, if someone says "all Palestinians are right wing" it's a pretty impotent argument - because most people understand that "all" Palestinians aren't really anything. But, in any clearly political context I would not say it was a racist statement.

Another thing. The context where many statements in this forum are made is one of hurling barely concealed insults back and forth. In those cases members are more likely to say something designed to enrage their opponent rather than engage in discussion. But, trying to make your opponent angry is usually not racism either. I suppose it could be in some instances if, while hurling insults, the person was deliberately trying to hurt the person by insulting their ethnicity. But, if there was some reasonable connection to the topic - then I would call it a pretty senseless statement but I'd probably not call it racism.

If someone said that to you and there was no obvious political context to justify it - then I would say in my reply to them that unless there was some justifiable and reasonable political context for the statement that you would be inclined to take it as an ethnic insult - and to please clarify his or her intentions in that regard. I suspect any member put on notice that way would make their intentions perfectly clear at that point. In that case you'd either have a clarification and/or apology - or grounds for a serious alert. That's a win-win for you and a lose-lose for whoever said it. And you didn't have to call anyone a bigot. I also think the mods would appreciate you clearing the air for them in a non-confrontational way so they would not be in a position of having to take sides in a "he meant / she meant" situation.

**********************************************

I used a lot of weasel words in there like probably, likely, some instances, etc. I'm not trying to avoid answering more directly - but with a hypothetical question I can only give a hypothetical answer.

[LeftishBrit]

63. Yes.

To be my usual pedantic self, it would probably be nationalistic rather than racial bigotry (like some Europaeans who think that all Americans are right-wing - or Americans who think that all French people are cheese-eating surrender monkeys!). But still bigoted.

[richards1052]

58. Remember this is the very same Goldberg who accused Jimmy Carter of being an anti-Semite

Only msmcghee would take Jeffrey Goldberg seriously as an unbiased observer of the I-P conflict. You'll recall that Goldberg's poisonous review of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid accused Jimmy Carter of being an anti-Semite among other distortions of the book & its author. For some godawful reason, Amazon featured Goldberg's review as the main one on the book's Amazon page & after a huge uproar Amazon retought this & now features an actual interview with Carter in its place. To anyone who buys what Goldberg peddles I say caveat emptor.

I note Goldberg no longer writes for The New Yorker and has moved to Atlantic Monthly. Could it be that David Remnick has grown tired of his toxic prose? The NY Times will publish Goldberg's reviews but then again they just signed Bill Kristol as their resident neocon columnist.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Do you mean the post review?

This one?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701835.html

What about this review could be considered poisonous or full of distortions? I certainly missed the accusation that Carter is an anti-semite. It actually reflects my own personal conclusions about the book, it isn't as though Goldberg is drawing huge extrapolations here... everything he commented on is focused on in the book itself.

Whether or not you consider Goldberg to be biased, this OP is from the NYTimes, a far more credible source than the majority of pro-Palestinian OPs that filter through here. If there's something specific you take issue with in the OP, then by all means point it out. But I'm tired of all the attempts at discrediting whole articles from established journals based on someone's opinion of the author. You're talking about someone who writes for the Times, AtMonthly and I guess, previously, the new yorker. These are hardly rags that will publish the ravings of any partisan lunatic. Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find more reputable, balanced sources than these.

If you think the OP is BS, then refute it. That's why we're all here, for discourse. But refute it with an argument, not just an assertion that the author isn't liberal enough to be trusted.

ps- If Goldberg truly did accuse Carter of anti-semitism I am very much interested in it. I would appreciate a link, if your accusation is well-founded. (In the event that it isn't though, this is a horrible thing to say about someone.)