OPINION & EDITORIAL
Anti-Zionism movement not equivocable with anti-Semitism
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Chris Dols:
- Scapegoating immigrants (April 15, 2005)
- Protest far from treasonous (April 20, 2005)
- Socialism needed for egalitarianism (April 28, 2005)
- Help for hurricane victims stuck in Iraq (September 15, 2005)
- Flaws in Beckstrom argument again (October 14, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Israel, not Palestine, wants war to continue (March 7, 2002)
- Letter (March 6, 2002)
- Controversial art shows grim reality of IDF (May 3, 2002)
- Israel's security measures vital for peace (March 1, 2007)
by Chris Dols
Monday, February 7, 2005
Nothing will change in Israel until Palestinians are guaranteed full equality, including the right to return to their pre-1948 homes. Israel’s defenders maintain that Israel’s security takes priority over this demand. Yet, Palestinian violence is resistance to an occupation and, more generally, to Israel’s denial of their right of return. If fulfilled, the right of return would end the resistance. Only by looking at Israel’s past can we solve this paradox facing Israel’s future.
Zionism is the movement for a Jewish state that began in the 1890s. In the context of the anti-Semitism of the first half of the twentieth century, such a project gained traction. Europe’s anti-Semites opportunistically saw Zionism as a chance to get Jews out of their way. In turn, Zionist leaders saw anti-Semitism not as something to be challenged, but as a fait accompli that would at the very least boost migration to a new Jewish state. Thus Theodor Herzl, widely recognized as the father of Zionism, said, “I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.” While a separate Jewish state logically fits with anti-Semites’ aspirations of their own national purity, Herzl’s attitude — taken to its logical conclusion — subordinates the struggle against anti-Semitism to the development of the Jewish state. Thus, in 1933, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) defeated a resolution to take action against the Nazis by a 240 to 43 vote.
As Hitler and Stalin terrorized Europe’s Jews, the West (Britain, the United States, and Canada) turned Jewish immigrants away. As a result, 8.5 percent of Europe’s fleeing Jews settled in Palestine — the site chosen by the WZO to host the future Jewish state. Because of its non-confrontational approach with anti-Semitism, Zionism wasn’t as popular among Jews as it is today. Many more Jews were members of socialist organizations that sought to defeat the reactionary scapegoating of Europe’s fascists and the USSR’s Stalin. Beyond disagreeing attitudes toward anti-Semitism (combative vs. escapist), the socialist perspective got at the very heart of Zionism’s hypocrisy: While offering a “homeland” for Jews, Zionists forcibly removed an existing population from Palestine. This is well documented in Zionist literature. Yet, the myth prevails that Palestine was ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’ — the international Jewish population.
According to the 1895 Ottoman Empire census, 500,000 people lived in Palestine, of whom 47,000 were Jewish. Yet, in the 1917 Balfour declaration, Chaim Weizmann (the future president of Israel) secured from the British the promise of a “National Jewish Home” in Palestine. Weizmann’s premise wasn’t that Palestine was uninhabited, but that it lacked ‘a people’ deserving self-determination in the land. In a letter to his son, Weizmann described native Palestinians as “the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared.” With the boost provided by the Balfour declaration, Zionists purchased land from absentee Ottoman landlords and evicted Palestinians in favor of the immigrant Jewish population. Israeli minister of defense Moshe Dayan said in 1969, “We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state … there is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village.”
All this paints a very different picture from the history we are now taught. The point is not to inflame Israel’s supporters — but to historically legitimize two pillars of the Palestinian movement. It is not anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism, and Palestinians were unjustly removed from their land. Even among Leftists who agree with this premise, there is disagreement regarding Israel’s real role.
Israel is not part of a Jewish conspiracy, nor is American support for Israel owed to a Jewish lobby. Unlike secular anti-Zionist arguments, these demonize Jews, thus misplacing the blame. While some attempt to equate Judaism and Zionism, we must make a distinction. Zionism is a political movement, and in the name of Jewish liberation, Israel plays a role for the dominant world powers. When Herzl considered Palestine for the future state of Israel (Argentina was originally chosen in 1904), he promised it to be “an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism … Europe would have to guarantee our existence.” Herzl wrote this when there was relatively little at stake economically in the Middle East. However, by the time of the Allied victory in the Second World War, oil had been discovered in abundance. The victors looked to solidify post-war economic dominance internationally, and finding a reliable ally in the Middle East was central. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz echoed Herzl in 1953 as they described Israel’s relationship with the West: “Israel is to become the watchdog … if for any reason the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.”
The path to peace in Israel is a trail yet to be blazed. The only tool capable of clearing the brush is the scythe of secularism. We must support the creation of a single state affording equal rights to all including the right of return for Palestinians. We must also oppose anti-Semitic critiques of Israel because opposing Zionism is about ending Western domination of the Middle East, and encouraging the independent rule of Middle Eastern Muslims, Jews and Christians alike.
Chris Dols (cdols@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in civil engineering and a member of the International Socialist Organization.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 6:43am):
Is India required to allow millions of impoverished Bangladeshis to cross its border and become citizens? (Bangladesh and India were once the same British colony, and 8 million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants live in India today) Is Spain required to grant citizenship to every impoverished Moroccan who wishes to move there (Spain was once a Muslim country called Al Andalus, 500,000 illegal and 500,000 legal Moroccan immigrants live in Spain today) Does Greece have to admit every Turk who would like a Greek passport and the privilege of working inside the EU? (Greece spend several centuries as a province of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey sent an army to conquer the northern third of Cyprus because it feels the right to reconquer its old colony)
Nations have borders, in part, because the ethnic groups on which nations are bassed have legitimate customs and cultural traditions that they wish to preserve. If Spain allows every Moroccan who wishes to emigrate to enter the country, an Arabic-speaking country will soon replace the Spanish-speaking nation that currently occupies the Arabian peninsula.
Chris Dols, of course, is not demanding that India, Spain, and Greece open their borders to all comers. He is demanding this only of Israel. And that is anti-Semitic.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 8:52am):
The premises of this article do not match the conclusions at the end.
The big argument is that anti-zionism is not anti-semetism. Fine - whatever.
However, that point really doesn't speak to why there shouldn't be two states as opposed to one.
Putting these two groups of people into one enclosed space seems like a recipe for disaster, not peace.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 9:08am):
I personally have never found the historical perspective of the Palestinians as compelling as the historical perspective of the Israelis.
The Palestinians were uprooted from their lands by an invading army through war. From their perspective, this was no doubt awful. However, history has not shown them to be alone in this fate. Countless peoples have been forcibly removed from their homes. Look at modern day Africa for plenty of examples.
The Israelis were uprooted from their lands by anti-semitism and Nazism. Over 6 million of their people (around 12 times the number of total living and dead Palestinians, if I can trust this article) were killed in Europe. The remaining folks had to go somewhere. No place in the world welcomed these refugees.
Therefore, these refugees fought themselves a foothold in yet another place in the world where the inhabitants hated Jews.
They were the classic version of people with their backs against the wall with everything to fight for. Not only did they defeat the Palestinians, but they also kicked the living daylights out of all the neighboring Arab states who rushed to their aid.
I do feel for the Palestinians, but I feel a heck of a lot more for the Jews.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 9:13am):
Chris, you're so full of shit! Do you honestly believe thatpeople are gonna accept your argument as not anti-Jewish, that you really are unbiased? Any way you look at it, you want Jews dead. Who do you think you're trying to bullshit. Your article was just one more fultile exercise at talking out of one side of your mouth.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 9:18am):
I would also say that you made a point that someone can be anti-Zionist without being an anti-Smeite, although the two often go hand in hand. The problem is that you didn't provide any evidence that Israel presenting the right of return to the Palestinians would end Palestinian resistance. If the dogma of Hamas and other groups would tell us anything, it is that they want to drive the Jews in Israel into the sea, not live in peace and harmony.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 10:28am):
...so sick of this subject...
...everyone on both sides is an asshole...
...blech...
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 10:38am):
Only about half of Israelis are descended fro refugees froEurope. (and Nazism) Half of Israelis are descended from, or are themselves refugees from, Arab anti-Semitism. It is true that 600,000 Palestinaian Arabs fled in 1948, during a war started by Arabs with the goal of killing and expelling all the Jews. It is also true that 900,000 Jews were driven from Muslim countries since 1948. Driven from Iraq, Iran, Syrian, Egypt and other Muslim lands as refugees, robbed of their property and in fear for their lives.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 11:13am):
...so sick of this subject...
...everyone on both sides is an asshole...
...blech...
We're not particularly fond of you either, bitch.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 11:17am):
"Nothing will change in Israel until Palestinians are guaranteed full equality, including the right to return to their pre-1948 homes."
You just don't get it. Those people fled VOLUNTARILY with the encouragement of the five invading Arab armies, who wanted them out of the way so they could rape, pillage, and massacre the Israelis without worrying about collateral damage. Any objective reading of international conventions would demand that they give up their "right" to return.
At the same time, what about the 750,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab lands with none of their possessions after Israel won its independence? They were absorbed into Israeli society and given a life within a few years; the roughly equivalent number of Arab refugees from Israel were kept in a perpetual state of poverty in order to crucify Israel on the international stage of public relations, despite the far greater resources available to the Arab nations to absorb their refugees.
"Yet, Palestinian violence is resistance to an occupation and, more generally, to Israel's denial of their right of return."
Wrong again. Palestinian violence is resistance to the mere existence of the State of Israel, and the presence of Jews in that land. They want us all dead. If you don't believe me, read the charters of Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.
"If fulfilled, the right of return would end the resistance."
Bullshit. If fulfilled, "resistance" would still continue until every last Jew in Israel was killed. If you don't believe me, read the charters of Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.
"Thus, in 1933, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) defeated a resolution to take action against the Nazis by a 240 to 43 vote."
Any student of history would tell you that the vote was hardly as Machiavellian as you make it sound. What could they do? They had no army, they had no means to resist the Nazis. The WZO did what it could to help as many Jews as possible get to what became Israel and pressured foreign governments to help in that goal, but no one listened.
"When Herzl considered Palestine for the future state of Israel (Argentina was originally chosen in 1904)"
Where do you get this stuff? Argentina was never considered. Uganda was considered. At one point, Grand Island (in New York) was considered. And Birobidzhan (in Russia, near Mongolia) was considered. But Argentina? What's your source for this, the Encyclopedia of Fantasyland?
Anti-Zionism should not necessarily be equated with anti-Semitism, but when it comes in inaccurate polemics like this, it should be. While we're at it, let's consider why you don't expend any of your righteous outrage protesting the conditions of women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims in Arab and Muslim countries, or the condition of the Coptic Christians in Ethiopia and Sudan, or the treatment of white farmers in Zimbabwe? Why did you protest when the US sent troops to try to prevent the genocide that was taking place in Bosnia, or to distribute aid to the people of Liberia (who BEGGED us to come)? Why do you not sympathize with the Euskadis (aka Basques) in France and Spain, or the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq? And perhaps most relevant to this article, why do you insist on a Palestinian right of return, but refuse the same right to Jews expelled from Arab countries? Why do you insist that Palestinians be allowed to move into Israel by the millions, but insist that the territories that will become a Palestinian state be completely Judenrein (i.e., no Jews will be allowed to live there)?
In short, by focusing solely on Israel to the exclusion of everywhere else in the world and by castigating only Jews in this conflict, your version of anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic. I'm sure you must hate being called a bigot, Chris, but that's what you are, and a particularly hateful and ignorant one at that.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 11:21am):
"The only tool capable of clearing the brush is the scythe of secularism."
This is a very interesting statement in the context of an article that claims anti-Zionism should not be equated with anti-Semitism, particularly since the group for which Chris is advocating, the Palestinians, intend to establish a religious (Islamic) state that will oppress Arabs far more than Israel ever did, will expel all Jews (where Israel has not expelled all Muslims), and will continue their policy of expelling Christians (as they have done in Bethlehem since the Oslo Accords were signed).
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 12:13pm):
Chris Dols is a shill for Fayyad Sbaihat and his terrorist pals in the PSM.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 12:16pm):
What idiot thought that Jews were expelled from Israel by the Nazis? Jews were long gone from Israel when Hitler came along (actually, they had recently been trying to get back in charge through targeted assassinations and kidnappings...sort of like the Iraqi insurgency, actually, exactly like the Iraqi insurgency).
Look, Jews need a place to live just like everyone else. So do Palestinians. As the above poster put it...blech. A pox on both houses here. Israeli settlers are CRAZY and suicide bombers are JUST AS CRAZY.
Fuck, who cares what happens in Israel? Israeli's consume something like 80% of the water in the region and its not filling up fast enough to keep pace with population. That place is going to be even more uninhabitable than it already is and this whole argument will be academic.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 1:22pm):
Once you've lived somewhere for 57 years, or 2 and a half generations, you aren't a settler anymore. At that point you just live there.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 1:27pm):
"Israeli's consume something like 80% of the water in the region and its not filling up fast enough to keep pace with population."
Source, please?
I'll bet you can't find it, can you? Could that be because you're lying?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 1:32pm):
"Israeli's consume something like 80% of the water in the region and its not filling up fast enough to keep pace with population."
Source, please?
I'll be you can't find it, can you? Could that be because you're lying?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 1:42pm):
maybe the palis should form a "one-state" pact with jordan...seeing as that is their natural homeland and a place where 65% of the population is homogeneous with their side ie "palistinian." another positive is that, the other 35% is at least muslim and ready for death chants, they could fit in perfectly. how come existing arab nations can't extend an olive branch to their favortite downtrodden people? uh, oh yea...they don't really like them and would rather they be an oppressed tool to continue their jew-hating ways.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 1:45pm):
THIS JUST IN:
syrians, lebonese, iraqis, iranians, egyptians, and other arabs DON'T NEED TO DRINK WATER! save the camel jokes...this is simply not true.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 2:35pm):
maybe the article wasn't so great, but the ironic part is that so many of the responses have displayed the same ill conceived, paranoid fear of anti semitism that Chris tries to deconstruct. Thousands of jews in Israel and around the world are critical of zionism. Are these anti semites then?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 2:36pm):
maybe the article wasn't so great, but the ironic part is that so many of the responses have displayed the same ill conceived, paranoid fear of anti semitism that Chris tries to deconstruct. Thousands of jews in Israel and around the world are critical of zionism. Are these anti semites then? Anti semitism is alive in the world, but probably not in Chris.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 2:39pm):
maybe the article wasn't so great, but the ironic part is that so many of the responses have displayed the same ill conceived, paranoid fear of anti semitism that Chris tries to deconstruct. Thousands of jews in Israel and around the world are critical of zionism. Are these anti semites then? Anti semitism is alive in the world, but probably not in Chris.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 2:42pm):
maybe the article wasn't so great, but the ironic part is that so many of the responses have displayed the same ill conceived, paranoid fear of anti semitism that Chris tries to deconstruct. Thousands of jews in Israel and around the world are critical of zionism. Are these anti semites then? Anti semitism is alive in the world, but probably not in Chris.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 3:04pm):
Source for the 80% water consupmtion right here....
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/19990818ib.html
Think before you speak, suckerhead.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 3:08pm):
More stuff on Israeli water consumption....
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=184
Shit, I could go all day....here's the problem.
It's not that I do not think everyone in Israel is a little bit nuts...because I do. It's that the people involved in this debate are just as crazy. "Source please!" Fuck off! If I say it's true mother fucker. Just because I don't source it, and I will when pressed motherfucker, doesn't mean I pulled it out of my ass.
Jesus, these people are so defensive on both sides. Nothing makes me madder than ANYONE who refuses to believe that their own side may be flawed, dangerously misguided, or possibly nuts when all three are true.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 3:53pm):
Chris, this is an excellent article. It makes the distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism very clear. The former is deplorable and should be resisted wherever it takes root, the latter is a position that affirms the universality of human rights and stands against ethno-centrism and extremist nationalism. Once again I'm dismayed by the extent to which the people commenting on this article are ill informed and ill-intentioned.
At the end of his article, Chris calls for a unitary democratic state in which people of all religions and ethnicities would have equal rights (Jews included). The response to this moral vision is to deny the suffering of the Palestinians (hence the comment that they 'fled' in 1948 when it is now universally accepted that 800,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes). Then there are the utterly spurious and absurd comparisons (the Morrocans were not recently cleansed en masse from Spain!! and Spanish society is not built on Morrocan land and over the ruins of Morrocan society!!). My personal favorite is the person who failed to realize that one of the examples cited (the fact that there was once a Muslim society in Spain does not justify Muslims re-claiming that land and getting rid of its inhabitants) demonstrates very clearly that the Zionist claim to Palestine cannot be justified; if there is no justified Muslim claim to Spain, then why is there a justified Zionist claim to Palestine? Since when does a 2000 year old claim to a plot of land justify destroying an indigenous society that has been on that land for centuries? Finally, there is the classic conflation of the atrocious crimes committed against the Jewish people in Europe and the Zionist project in Palestine. The holocaust was committed in Europe, by Europeans, and the aftermath should have been dealt with in Europe - not Palestine. Chris is absolutely right to say that in so far as Zionism has discouraged dealing with anti-semitism head on and where it exists, it has made common cause with the anti-semites.
And then we hear another platitude of Zionist logic: but there are atrocities and ethnic cleansing everywhere, so why should we blame Israel! What this really translates to is: Israel should be immune from international standards of human rights and therefore free to do what it wants to the Palestinians! Israel is above all other nations! It is the only victim, so how could it possibly be oppressing the Palestinians! And this is notwithstanding the fact that if this were mentioned in any other context, it would be laughed out of court! For example, 'why do we have to care about human rights violations in Saudi Arabia. After all, isn't Egypt also committing human rights abuses!!
The message from the holocaust was 'never again to ANYONE' not 'never again to the Jewish people.' We obviously did not learn this, because through Rwanda, Palestine and other places where atrocities are being committed, the holocaust continues.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:05pm):
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/19990818ib.html
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=184
Okay, I read both, but neither proves a damn thing. They are both websites run by Arabs. Like we're actually gonna read anything unbiased on their sites? Gimme a break!
If all those Arab countries would concentrate their efforts on improving their own water supply instead of taking pot shots at Israel, then maybe they would enjoy a higher standard of living for once. Until that happens, you stupid liberal college kiddies should go back to class, and maybe you'll graduate. By the time you finally do, your conservative and Jewish counterparts will have already paid off their student loans. Where will YOU be in ten years?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:07pm):
"The message from the holocaust was 'never again to ANYONE' not 'never again to the Jewish people.'"
Ah, so now the Madison liberals have finally said what's really on their minds. Jews are an exception. Now we know for sure that Madison liberals are anti-Jewish bastards.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:33pm):
"Source for the 80% water consupmtion right here....
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/19990818ib.html
Think before you speak, suckerhead."
That's your source? THAT's your source?
If you believe the crap those people publish, I've got some prime real estate in South Florida that might interest you.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:33pm):
Oh yeah, they're totally Arab run media...did you check to see who they are? The first link is to a professor at Jerusalem University. What do you mean they don't prove a damn thing? Clearly you didn't read them.
Also, I love how you equate being Jewish and conservative with being rich. Who gives a fuck if you're rich? That doesn't mean shit. in fact, it reinforces negative stereotypes about Jews! I hate rich people no matter what religion, race, creed or whatever the fuck they are because they're snotty and think their money makes them smart. Just like you apparently do.
Fuck off old rich asshole. Who gives a fuck what you think? Why are you arguing with undergrads? You're probably 19, a rich young fuck from Long Island with an SUV, a sense of entitlement, a coke habit, an STD or two, an annoying voice, and I could care less that you're Jewish.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:33pm):
let us not be rediculous. everybody in the world is out to get Jews. that is a fact.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:35pm):
"http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/pubs/19990818ib.html
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=184"
Brought to you by the same people who claim the Israelis, not al-Qaeda, were behind the 9/11 attacks. Also the same people who claim the Israelis caused the tsunami in December.
Care to try again? This time, I'd like to see a REPUTABLE source.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:37pm):
"The first link is to a professor at Jerusalem University."
Jerusalem University. Also known as Al-Quds University.
Guess what? It's a PALESTINIAN university, run by Sari Nusseibeh, a leading figure in the PLO.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 4:42pm):
""Source please!" Fuck off! If I say it's true mother fucker. Just because I don't source it, and I will when pressed motherfucker, doesn't mean I pulled it out of my ass."
So if I claim that you killed fourteen people in Kalamazoo last week for wearing blue jeans, everyone should just accept it as gospel truth? If that's what you really want, killer, I can play that game too.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 5:32pm):
"The first link is to a professor at Jerusalem University."
Yeah, and it's run by an Arab. Like hell I didn't read them!
"Also, I love how you equate being Jewish and conservative with being rich."
I didn't say anything about being rich, goofball!
Also, I really don't give a "fuck" what your problem is, punk. Why don't you go the "fuck" back to class and get a "fuck"-ing education. Until hell does freeze over, go "fuck" yourself. No one else wants to.
"Fuck off old rich asshole. Who gives a fuck what you think? Why are you arguing with undergrads?"
Well, you got it right that I'm 19, but I'm from Madison, I'm here on a scholarship, I ride the bus, I have no STDs, no coke habit, and I'm not Jewish, though it would be fun to put on a yarmulke and sing Ha-Tikva just to piss you off. Ha-ha!
I'm pretty sure of one thing: you are definitely not an Arab, just some snot-nosed, politically-correct Madison juvenile with a lot of growing up to do. Start now, because you won't be an undergrad forever.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 5:41pm):
""Source please!" Fuck off! If I say it's true mother fucker. Just because I don't source it, and I will when pressed motherfucker, doesn't mean I pulled it out of my ass."
Man oh man, how Madison liberals have suddenly become desperate. Look, I know it's no fun losing your status as the "in" crowd, but you gotta admit, you have no one to blame but yourselves for it.
"Motherfucker this, motherfucker that!" Wow! Political cartoonists will probably get writer's cramp lampooning these bozos.
"Just because I don't source it, and I will when pressed motherfucker, doesn't mean I pulled it out of my ass."
Well, you certainly didn't pull it out of your brain. Where else could it possibly come from?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 5:48pm):
Motherfucker! Motherfucker! The whole world's a bunch of motherfuckers! Everybody's a motherfucker 'cept me! Ya hear me, motherfuckers?! YA HEAR ME?!!!
Sounds like some Madison liberal has a psychosis. Or maybe he lost a bet on the Super Bowl. Can't win 'em all, eh?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 5:59pm):
EQUIVOCABLE IS NOT A WORD, GENIUS!
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 6:10pm):
"EQUIVOCABLE IS NOT A WORD, GENIUS!"
Yeah it is, motherfucker! I didn't just pull the word out of my ass! MOTHERFUCKER!!!
Just kidding, dude. You're right, it's not a word. Peace.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 6:20pm):
You know it's amazing how we started out with an article on the Middle-East, but wound up discussing something else. I guess it goes to show how quickly students at UW-Madison become bored with current issues. Either the quality of higher education is declining or genuine interest in it is. Anyone?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 7:33pm):
"Either the quality of higher education is declining or genuine interest in it is."
The article was never about the Middle East. It's just another anti-Semitic polemic, short on fact and long on uninformed rhetoric.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 7:52pm):
speaking of anti semitism, does anyone else notice how tolerated the anti arab and anti muslim tones are. arab generalizations have been widely accepted throughout this discourse. what a shame.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 8:20pm):
"...does anyone else notice how tolerated the anti arab and anti muslim tones are. arab generalizations have been widely accepted throughout this discourse. what a shame."
What are you talking about? I don't recall any anti-Arab slurs anywhere in this "discourse". Where exactly are the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim tones?
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 8:33pm):
There's just not enough apathy in this town. C'mon, people! Obsess over something else!
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 8:49pm):
AMERICAN JEWS GOT A PROBLEM,
Unless they recognize the difference between themselves and Israelis, how in the world would they expect others to distinguish between them and Israelis. If the line is so blur to you, don't take it personally, when, next time I'm mad at Israel, I attack you because you're a Jew.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 8:57pm):
"If the line is so blur to you, don't take it personally, when, next time I'm mad at Israel, I attack you because you're a Jew."
If you attack me because I'm a Jew, you'd better be prepared for me to kick your ass because you're an asshole.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 9:01pm):
"AMERICAN JEWS GOT A PROBLEM,
Unless they recognize the difference between themselves and Israelis, how in the world would they expect others to distinguish between them and Israelis. If the line is so blur to you, don't take it personally, when, next time I'm mad at Israel, I attack you because you're a Jew."
How do you expect American Jews to separate themselves from Israelis when idiots like you constantly lump them together? Maybe they should attack you the next time they're mad at retards.
Anonymous (February 7, 2005 @ 11:13pm):
Well well well, now we all know what's really on liberals' minds! I guess if this were Canada or the UK, you'd still have a problem with Jews, wouldn't you? So the Badger Herald really run by a bunch of anti-Jewish bastards, just like half the student organizations on this campus. Looks like the end of liberalism in this town is near. Shalom, Nazi pig assholes!
Chris Dols (February 8, 2005 @ 12:15am):
my apologies for opening the floodgates. I now understand why so many post anonymous comments. If you are going to call Badger Herald columnists terrorists I guess it's a lot easier to do it anonymously. "Arab run" does not equal terrorist just like "jew run" does not equal zionist. As soon as you conflate the issues you are doing the discourse a disservice.
I really implore the zionists who disagree with my opinions to take on the central argument: that Israel plays a particular role for the dominant world powers disingenuously in the name of Judaism. Civil discourse is really important right now, not stereotypes and assumptions. Let's talk about the politics, the history and the ideas, not "hidden motives" and name calling.
salam/shalom
-Chris Dols
cadols@wisc.edu
Anonymous (February 8, 2005 @ 12:54am):
"I really implore the zionists who disagree with my opinions to take on the central argument: that Israel plays a particular role for the dominant world powers disingenuously in the name of Judaism."
Just what I suspected all along, Chris. You are an anti-Jewish bastard. To say that Israel forsakes its Jewish roots to "play a role" for the "dominant world powers" is similar to what the authors of "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion" had intended. It's nice when you can take young, impressionable minds and warp them any way you want. Next thing you'll be telling these kids is that Jews are hellbent on taking over the world, that they control the media and the governments of the major world powers.
Jews make up less than .01% of the world population. Does that sound like a big enough number to accomplish world domination? Do your twisted little brains not have the capacity to learn more than the traditional anti-Semitic bullshit that right-wing extremists have been touting for years? Probably not.
"Let's talk about the politics, the history and the ideas, not "hidden motives" and name calling" you say. No, let's talk about your own hidden motives, you neo-Nazi son-of-a-bitch! How about an ass-kickin' to spell it out for you? Time and place?
Anonymous (February 8, 2005 @ 1:20am):
By Bill Linville
Chris challenges people to take up the central argument of his article, instead of name-calling. The central argument is that Zionism has its origins as a political movement, not a religious movement, that the world's powers (Britain and then the U.S.) saw Israel as a very valuable "watchdog" in the oil-rich Middle East (see Rumsfield's comments calling on Israel to bomb Iran with the U.S. army tied up in Iraq) that the motives of the Zionists and anti-Semites lined up nicely in forming Israel (because both thought it impossible for Jews and non-Jews to live together) and that it is NOT Jews or "the Jewish lobby" who control U.S. policy, rather the U.S. uses Israel as a watchdog state to serve its interests in the Middle East and doesn't care about real anti-Semitism (in fact, it turned away Holocaust victims). In the face of such a complex argument we get "Anonymous" who promises an "ass-kicking" to "neo-Nazi son-of-a-bitch". "Anonymous" obviously hasn't bothered to read and consider his arguments before jumping on the ass-kicking train. This is the problem with anonymous postings -- MODERATOR -- Chris is having violence threatened against him and there is no way to find out who is making the threatening remarks! This is not political dialogue!
Anonymous (February 8, 2005 @ 1:51am):
Bill, your rationalization, or attempt at it, won't help. Just about every single opinion piece published by The Badger Herald is anti-Semitic whether anyone admits it or not. If he thinks he can bullshit every one of the BH's readers by coming off as impartial when he's just another anti-Jewish liberal asshole, then he needs to be reminded that not all of us are idiots.
His anti-Jewish rhetoric is a thinly-veiled attempt to generate animosity against a group that is too small in number to defend itself. If YOU choose to back him up then maybe you need your ass kicked too.
Anonymous (February 8, 2005 @ 1:57am):
Bill: Just because Donald Rumsfeld wants Israel to bomb Iran doesn't mean Israel is actually going to do it. And because of that, you claim that Israel is a watchdog for the U.S. Hell, the U.S. has the best spy satellites. We can watch what's going on in the Mideast without any help from Israel.
As for Israel lashing out against its neighbors: Israel has a strict policy of attacking only in retaliation or if one of its neighbors behaves in a way that clearly demonstrates hostile intent. Not because its only military ally, the U.S., pulls off the leash and yells "Sic 'em!"
Anonymous (February 10, 2005 @ 11:25am):
well Chris, it is a lot easier to call someone a terrorist and spew rhetoric when there is no personal accountability.
the problem with the middle east, specifically Israel-Palestine, is that neither side is necessarily right. and that is something that most people don't seem to understand. from a civil rights stand point, it would be easier to support the cause of the palestinians. and due to the large jewish influence on this campus, there is subsequently a lot of support for israel.
both groups, imo, have the same right to be there. palestinians lived there before they were systematically evicted from their homes. israel historically had a presence in the region; but more importantly, to kick them out now would be just as bad as how they got back in. so easy solution? let both groups coexist. however, to say that current attempts at that have been futile, would be to make things seem better than they are. unfortunately, israel doesn't get that palestinians have the right to be there, and should not be further pushed out of the region. i would not be surprised at all if they wouldn't be content with the eradication of arabs from the region (something they should have learned the consequences of about 65 years ago). and that doesn't mean that the arab world wouldn't have it the same way.
no wall that israel can build will isolate them enough from the rest of the world, and that will only boost the problem. hamas needs to stop the bombings and attacks. israel needs to stop bulldozing homes WITH PEOPLE INSIDE. i have limited confidence in the newest set of peace talks, but am hopefull that the ceasefire will last short-term, because it will prevent the deaths of at least a couple israelis and palestinians.
while i agree with chris in most of what he says, a single state will most likely not work. in a predominantly jewish state, muslims will never have power. look at the balance of power of hutus and tutsis in rwanda. sunnis and shiites in iraq. there will always be one ruling demographic and one that will not have power.
i know it's impractical, but the only way to end this mindless violence, to end anti-semitism, is to stop self-segregation. stop backing up religion with military. actually understand the teachings of your own religion. would jesus have invaded a sovereign country and forced his beliefs on its people? christianity, judaism, and islam are all peaceful religions. they all promote peace over violence. yet some of their practitioners don't understand that. the world would be a better place if anyone understood that.
i don't mean to say that the problems are between jews and muslims. because they're not. the problems are between political actors, mainly israel and palestine. it is a huge difference, one that chris i think attempted to point out, in that anti-israel is NOT anti-jews. and any "anti-semitism" claims are simply a way to cover your ears and eyes and yell and hope to drown out the argument.
to close, both sides would benefit from reading their respective religious texts, understand them, and most importantly, follow them. if israel and palestine both loved thy neighbor, there would be no conflict today.
Anonymous (August 28, 2005 @ 3:57pm):
test
