Education Dept. : BDS activity against Israel will be defined as anti-Semitism

[Coyote]

But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

I'm sure this is true. But they aren't very visible. As compared to say, Linda Sarsour, who cautions American Muslims not to see Israelis (Jews) as human.

How can we increase the visibility of those Muslim groups? It seems to me that is exactly what this thread is asking. Why are those American Muslim (or Arab) groups not policing their own? Why are they not spear-heading the fight against anti-semitism at BDS events?

Here again...isn't that exactly what the definition of anti-semitism covers when it applies to Jews? Blaming all Jews for the actions of Israel? Why are Jews not "policing their own"? Why, in fact should they be held responsible for the actions of another state is what should be asked? Why are American Muslims being held responsible for the behavior of outside entities who happen to share the same religion? Why aren't Christians or Hindus held to those same standards?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

There is a huge difference with Muslims living in countries which are Democratic in the West, and Islam ever being pro Democracy then or now.

And there is a huge difference between Muslims who immigrated to the West 40 years ago, and many Muslims who do so in order to change the Western society and culture and turn it more and more like Islam.

20 years ago, did one find any Muslims attacking and inciting against Jews in Europe or anywhere else outside of Israel, or anyone who is pro Israel? No.

It is happening in France, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and other countries.
It is being brought up by Muslims who are against Jews, period, not just against Israel. And they are doing it side by side by Nazis, Communists and Fascists who know nothing but to blame all the woes of the world on Jews.

Yes, the Jews. Not Israel.

And Jews in general, as a whole.

The intent of the attacks on Jews since 1920 was not only to keep them from being sovereign over any part of their ancient homeland, but it was to kill them all. BDS against Israel was going on even between 1920 and 1948, as a way to attempt to destroy the Jewish dream of being sovereign of their own destiny, again.

BDS, from 2005 on, is merely a continuation of what was happening between 1920 and 1948.

A continuation of the Arabs proclaiming themselves Palestinians as a nationality in 1948.

Of making others believe that "their" land is being occupied by invading foreigners.

Of making believe that Israel murders innocent people at will.

etc, etc, etc


BDS is an organization started by Arab terrorists who want to see Israel destroyed and the Jews their servants or wiped out.

THAT is what the seven Arab States invasion of Israel in 1948 was all about. But they cannot stand losing so BDS and endless incitement to people who will believe anything they say is all they have.

It is not working anymore. Not the US, not to Belgium and many other countries who are slowly starting to see the picture and realize they must do something to stop feeding the beast which wants to destroy a country at the cost of its innocent people whom they incite and weaponize daily in order to achieve any semblance of victory for themselves and many non Muslims who see, not only Israel, but Jews in general as evil, and in absolute need to be conquered and in need to return to the role they had before the Balfour Declaration.

One cannot separate Israel from the rest of the Jews. Those in Islam and Christianity who insist in seeing Jews as evil and that they must remain docile servants to both religions will not allow the world to stop thinking that way.

Any one who may wish to see the BDS movement as rightful and fair, clearly does not see what their printed and verbal intents continue to be towards Israel and to Jews in general to this day.

Surely, Israel will not do so, but maybe it should give in spades, should it not?
Not allow Arabs to live in Israel
Keep them from working in Israel
Keep them from going to school in Israel
Keep them from getting health care in Israel.


BDS against BDS.


Shall we go that route?

 

[Sixties Fan]

But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

I'm sure this is true. But they aren't very visible. As compared to say, Linda Sarsour, who cautions American Muslims not to see Israelis (Jews) as human.

How can we increase the visibility of those Muslim groups? It seems to me that is exactly what this thread is asking. Why are those American Muslim (or Arab) groups not policing their own? Why are they not spear-heading the fight against anti-semitism at BDS events?

In one sense, we can blame the media - why do they choose to emphasize some over the others? Much of what I read about Sarsour is from rightwing sources using her to point out anti-semitism, those same sources who ignore or downplay cooperative enterprises that ARE in the news but don't get latched on to.

Question:

Is Linda Sarsour antisemitic or not?

Is the UK's Corbin, and many in that party, antisemitic?

In what way are they not antisemitic?

In what way are they not using BDS tools to attack Israel, even if Israel is not doing something wrong?

Is accusing Israel of doing something wrong, like defending its borders, arresting terrorists attempting to murder - or murdering Israelis - , is that antisemitic?

Any Corporate group which is using its power to help destroy Israel, because it is a Jewish State, are being called on as well

 

[Coyote]

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

Interesting case especially with the definition of anti semitism. I wonder how many people realize that holding all responsible for the actions of some is exactly what is routinely done with Muslims here. Same card, dopifferent faces. One is condemned, the other justified. I agree with the definition...it is the ultimate irony though that many of those who do do not see how they themselves are utilizing the same rhetoric against other groups.

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

There is a huge difference with Muslims living in countries which are Democratic in the West, and Islam ever being pro Democracy then or now.

Just looking at this. Aren't you doing to Muslims what anti-semites do to Jews? What is the difference between your argument and the argument of those who argue Israel can not be Jewish AND a democratic state?

Clearly Islam is compatible with democratic values because Muslims thrive and live in Democratic states and according to polls at least show little desire to lose those values. They have made their religious observances compatible with democratic values.

I will agree on one thing - when religion becomes part of the state and system of laws - democratic values can become endangered. There is no religion I can think of that is compatible with democracy in it's entirety.

 

[Coyote]

But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

I'm sure this is true. But they aren't very visible. As compared to say, Linda Sarsour, who cautions American Muslims not to see Israelis (Jews) as human.

How can we increase the visibility of those Muslim groups? It seems to me that is exactly what this thread is asking. Why are those American Muslim (or Arab) groups not policing their own? Why are they not spear-heading the fight against anti-semitism at BDS events?

In one sense, we can blame the media - why do they choose to emphasize some over the others? Much of what I read about Sarsour is from rightwing sources using her to point out anti-semitism, those same sources who ignore or downplay cooperative enterprises that ARE in the news but don't get latched on to.

Question:

Is Linda Sarsour antisemitic or not?

I am going to try to answer all these thoughtfully and seriously...so bare with me.

I think so, at least to some degree based on what she has said - but I don't think she is the evil she is made out to be, and that has been way over played. She is a flawed human being. Here's an interesting editorial: American Jews, lay off Linda Sarsour

Is the UK's Corbin, and many in that party, antisemitic?

Yes...this is something that has increasingly been coming to light. The fact that Corbin refuses to definitively denounce or move to clean the party up is disturbing and calls into question Corbin's own views on Jews. And it's a shame.

In what way are they not antisemitic?

The Labour Party in and of itself is not antisemitic unless it has a clearly anti-semitic platform and if it does I'm not aware of it. Members within it might be anti-semitic, but that isn't everyone.

Sarsour expresses some antisemitic views but also some legitimate views. I think that the opinion piece I linked to said it very well.

In what way are they not using BDS tools to attack Israel, even if Israel is not doing something wrong?

I'm not sure what you are asking - for example, there are clearly Israeli policies that some feel are wrong, instance the issue of settlements. Are you saying that using BDS tools against Israel to attempt to change those policies is antisemitic?

Is accusing Israel of doing something wrong, like defending its borders, arresting terrorists attempting to murder - or murdering Israelis - , is that antisemitic?

Not necessarily - it really depends on the situation.

Israel has a right to defend it's borders the same as any other nation. If a critic singles out Israel for special condemnation, and can't give a reason why Israel shouldn't have that same right then it begs the question - is it because they are Jewish? On the other hand, there is the concept of proportionality. If Israel launches a nuke at Gaza to defend it's borders - is objecting to that anti-semitic? I don't think so. That's just using an extreme example to make a point. I do think in most (but not all) cases Israel has been very careful in it's defenses, much more so than can be said of many other states in conflicts in the area.

Any Corporate group which is using its power to help destroy Israel, because it is a Jewish State, are being called on as well

Do they want to destroy Israel or force a change in certain policies? Boycotts are a long established and useful, non-violent means of effecting change. Are you saying now that any attempts at such are to destroy Israel and therefore anti-semitic?


The questions you asked me also make me think of another - is anti-semitism always so black and white and clear cut?

 

[rylah]

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

How is it that in every case people want to discuss antisemitism, Muslim groups cry foul.
Here's another fact for Your moral relativism - there're no Arab support in the combat of antisemitism (not to mention incitement), but there's a significant representation of Jewish organizations fighting for rights of the Muslim community.

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

There is a huge difference with Muslims living in countries which are Democratic in the West, and Islam ever being pro Democracy then or now.

Just looking at this. Aren't you doing to Muslims what anti-semites do to Jews? What is the difference between your argument and the argument of those who argue Israel can not be Jewish AND a democratic state?

Clearly Islam is compatible with democratic values because Muslims thrive and live in Democratic states and according to polls at least show little desire to lose those values. They have made their religious observances compatible with democratic values.

I will agree on one thing - when religion becomes part of the state and system of laws - democratic values can become endangered. There is no religion I can think of that is compatible with democracy in it's entirety.

Many western religious countries, all are democratic.
Except for the Jewish nation none are fully democratic in the middle east.

According to the Democracy Index 2016 study, Israel (#29 worldwide) is the only democracy in the Middle East, while Tunisia(#69 worldwide) is the only democracy in North Africa.[1] The measure of the level of democracy in nations throughout the world published by Freedom House and various other freedom indices, the Middle Eastern and North African countries with the highest scores are Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, and Kuwait. Countries that are occasionally classified as partly democratic are Egypt and Iraq. The remaining countries of the Middle East are categorized as authoritarian regimes, with the lowest scores held by Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Democracy in the Middle East - Wikipedia

 

[Shusha]

You brought up Morocco but you have not said how it is comparable - how is it?

Western Sahara is a territory formerly under control of Spain, where the Sahwari people are actively seeking independence, self-determination and national liberation. Morocco deliberately moved hundreds of thousands of its own citizens across an international border to "settle" Western Sahara. Where is the international outcry against those "settlers"?

Ideally - and you and I agree on this - the state lines should include which ever ethnic groups are living there without prejudice. But realistically do you see Israel letting that territory go to a future Palestinian state? (or unfortunately, the Palestinians accepting Jewish settlers and Jewish settlers accepting Palestinians in their area). Team Israel keeps insisting settlements aren't an obstacle to peace yet they clearly are.

Of course the settlements are an "obstacle to peace" but you keep skipping over the reasons WHY. In a world without discrimination and where all peoples are safe from harm from other peoples they would not be an obstacle to peace. They should not be an obstacle to peace. They ARE an obstacle to peace precisely because of the discrimination and lack of safety for Jews. You even just said it. Arab Palestinians DO NOT and WILL NOT accept Jews in their territory. If the Jewish people were SAFE in Arab lands, including Arab Palestine, this would not be a problem. The problem is not the presence of Jews. You keep wanting to make the problem the presence of Jews. The CAUSE of the problem is Arab (and Muslim) discrimination against Jews (anti-semitism).

 

[Coyote]

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

What moral relativism?

And I am actually talking about people HERE. And I forget a lot of folks in these type of threads only post in IP. That means you don’t see a lot of what gets said outside your interests,

In terms of groups I agree there are more Jewish groups fighting for the rights of others than Arab groups. But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.

Regardless though, are you saying because the balance is lopsided it is acceptable? Behavior mirroring your definition of antisemitism (one that comes to mind that is often repeated here is that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims can’t be real Americans, an echo of Jews are loyal to Israel over xyz claims).

When hatred exists, along the lines outlined in the definition you posted it should be confronted regardless of how you feel about the target or how much you might support the group. For example...what is happening with UK’s labor party and the really disturbing revelations about Corbin. Is that supportable simply because you agree with the left ideology over right? You can’t support it. You can’t excuse it. You can only excise it.

Claims of relative moralism seems like a way of excusing the inexcusable.

[But there are Muslim groups, at least in the US fighting against antisemitism together with other faith groups. That tends to get ignored or desparaged.]

That is absolute nonsense on your part.

Why is it that you see things which are not happening?

"We" ignore or disparage the fact that Jews, Muslims AND Christians do get together in the US, and anywhere in the world for that matter to fight antisemitism?

Unless you have posts to give as examples, then I do not see where you are coming from?

I see a lot of responses where it's disparaged as "it's an anomoly" type of responses. I quit posting about it because of that. I'll have to look up topics.

Islam is compatible with democracy? Gives us any example of a Muslim country which has ever been considered a democracy? Or could be considered a democracy today.
Maybe one Muslim country or another having relations with Israel today? But are they really democratic?

See that is EXACTLY the type of argument I'm talking about. You just provided the perfect example. Islam, as a religion is compatible with democracy. Look at India. Look at the US. Look at Canada. All have muslim citizens that uphold their countries values and democratic principles. The problem is when you mix religion with government - democratic values and minority religious rights usually loses. And that includes Israel if it continues to go down that path.

You need to be more explicit about the UK's Labour party.
It used to be pro Israel decades ago.

A guide to Labour anti-Semitism claims

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism ‘problem’ becomes a crisis

There is a huge difference with Muslims living in countries which are Democratic in the West, and Islam ever being pro Democracy then or now.

Just looking at this. Aren't you doing to Muslims what anti-semites do to Jews? What is the difference between your argument and the argument of those who argue Israel can not be Jewish AND a democratic state?

Clearly Islam is compatible with democratic values because Muslims thrive and live in Democratic states and according to polls at least show little desire to lose those values. They have made their religious observances compatible with democratic values.

I will agree on one thing - when religion becomes part of the state and system of laws - democratic values can become endangered. There is no religion I can think of that is compatible with democracy in it's entirety.

Many western 'religious' countries, all are democratic.
Except for the Jewish nation none are fully democratic in the middle east.

According to the Democracy Index 2016 study, Israel (#29 worldwide) is the only democracy in the Middle East, while Tunisia(#69 worldwide) is the only democracy in North Africa.[1] The measure of the level of democracy in nations throughout the world published by Freedom House and various other freedom indices, the Middle Eastern and North African countries with the highest scores are Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Morocco, and Kuwait. Countries that are occasionally classified as partly democratic are Egypt and Iraq. The remaining countries of the Middle East are categorized as authoritarian regimes, with the lowest scores held by Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Democracy in the Middle East - Wikipedia

Many western "religious" countries are democratic, yes. But how many of them include religious law in their system of laws? To my knowledge they are secular and that is an important component of democracy and of safeguarding the rights of religious minorities in a nation. Many Muslim majority countries (but not all) include some aspect of religious law in their system. I can't think of any country that does so that does not have some degree of religious disenfranchisment, tension or worse.

 

[Shusha]

Settlements are almost entirely Jewish in membership

Of course settlements are Jewish in membership. That is the DEFINITION of "settlements" -- places where Jews live. Places where Arabs live (even if they are places settled since the start of the conflict!) are not labelled "settlements". That ALONE is evidence of discrimination against Jews for being Jews.

This is EXACTLY the point. If a Jew moves to a place "he is not supposed to be" its "settlement" (and therefore bad). If an Arab moves into a place "he is not supposed to be" its his "right" (and therefore good). THAT IS THE DISCRIMINATION.

 

[Coyote]

You brought up Morocco but you have not said how it is comparable - how is it?

Western Sahara is a territory formerly under control of Spain, where the Sahwari people are actively seeking independence, self-determination and national liberation. Morocco deliberately moved hundreds of thousands of its own citizens across an international border to "settle" Western Sahara. Where is the international outcry against those "settlers"?

Ideally - and you and I agree on this - the state lines should include which ever ethnic groups are living there without prejudice. But realistically do you see Israel letting that territory go to a future Palestinian state? (or unfortunately, the Palestinians accepting Jewish settlers and Jewish settlers accepting Palestinians in their area). Team Israel keeps insisting settlements aren't an obstacle to peace yet they clearly are.

Of course the settlements are an "obstacle to peace" but you keep skipping over the reasons WHY. In a world without discrimination and where all peoples are safe from harm from other peoples they would not be an obstacle to peace. They should not be an obstacle to peace. They ARE an obstacle to peace precisely because of the discrimination and lack of safety for Jews. You even just said it. Arab Palestinians DO NOT and WILL NOT accept Jews in their territory. If the Jewish people were SAFE in Arab lands, including Arab Palestine, this would not be a problem. The problem is not the presence of Jews. You keep wanting to make the problem the presence of Jews. The CAUSE of the problem is Arab (and Muslim) discrimination against Jews (anti-semitism).

Thank you for clarifying Morocco - that should receive the same attention, but clearly hasn't. I had not heard of it before you brought it up in this thread.

On the second - I disagree. The issue is that it unilaterally removes that area from negotiations on a future state of Palestine, much as Jerusalem was unilaterally removed from the table.

Do you think the Settlers, given their propensity to stone Palestinians, and their attitudes toward that region (God gave it to them, expel Arabs, preferential rights for Jews) - would be willing to accept Arabs in their conclaves?

 

[Coyote]

Settlements are almost entirely Jewish in membership

Of course settlements are Jewish in membership. That is the DEFINITION of "settlements" -- places where Jews live. Places where Arabs live (even if they are places settled since the start of the conflict!) are not labelled "settlements". That ALONE is evidence of discrimination against Jews for being Jews.

This is EXACTLY the point. If a Jew moves to a place "he is not supposed to be" its "settlement" (and therefore bad). If an Arab moves into a place "he is not supposed to be" its his "right" (and therefore good). THAT IS THE DISCRIMINATION.

Ok...how many NEW Arab villages have been created and legalized in the same area as the Jewish ones?

Wasn't it the Israeli's themselves who called them settlements?

 

[Shusha]

Why are American Muslims being held responsible for the behavior of outside entities who happen to share the same religion?

I have never, ever, on this board (meaning I/P) seen anyone hold American Muslims (non-Palestinian) responsible for the behavior of Palestinians.

 

[Coyote]

Why are American Muslims being held responsible for the behavior of outside entities who happen to share the same religion?

I have never, ever, on this board (meaning I/P) seen anyone hold American Muslims (non-Palestinian) responsible for the behavior of Palestinians.

No, but I was speaking more broadly - on religion in general (and going a little off topic mea culpa).

 

[Shusha]

On the second - I disagree. The issue is that it unilaterally removes that area from negotiations on a future state of Palestine, much as Jerusalem was unilaterally removed from the table.

Yes. But again -- you keep skipping the WHY. The WHY is ALWAYS because of anti-Jewish discrimination. Why must Israel keep East Jerusalem? Why must Israel keep the specific areas with large Jewish populations? What is the REASON behind it?

 

[Shusha]

Do you think the Settlers, given their propensity to stone Palestinians, and their attitudes toward that region (God gave it to them, expel Arabs, preferential rights for Jews) - would be willing to accept Arabs in their conclaves?

1. Oh come on! Did you want to play THAT justification game? 'Cause the Jews got this one in SPADES. Stones? Religious replacement theology and waqf beliefs? Expulsions? Preferential rights for Muslims? I'll see all that and raise you martyrs and kites and suicide bombers.

2. Yes. Of course Jews will accept Arabs. There is a 100 years of proof of it by the undeniable actual acceptance of Arabs in Israel.

 

[Shusha]

Ok...how many NEW Arab villages have been created and legalized in the same area as the Jewish ones?

Don't have time to count them. But did you want to start calling them "settlements" too? Shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't places where Arabs live ALSO be called settlements?

 

[Indeependent]

Ok...how many NEW Arab villages have been created and legalized in the same area as the Jewish ones?

Don't have time to count them. But did you want to start calling them "settlements" too? Shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't places where Arabs live ALSO be called settlements?

Because they’re already called Bomb Factories.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ok...how many NEW Arab villages have been created and legalized in the same area as the Jewish ones?

Don't have time to count them. But did you want to start calling them "settlements" too? Shouldn't they be? Why shouldn't places where Arabs live ALSO be called settlements?

Coyote may not understand what the Oslo Accord was about, and what areas A and B are. They are free of Jews.

Not only that, if any Jew happens to enter those areas by mistake, as it has happened, their lives are at risk.

Area C is under Israeli control. There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

I do not see the EU helping the Jews create illegal buildings in areas A and B. Does anyone?

 

[Shusha]

I do not see the EU helping the Jews create illegal buildings in areas A and B. Does anyone?

Area C is the disputed territory. If the objective rule is "no one is permitted to build there until the dispute is resolved", the EU appears to have a double standard in helping Arabs build there while screaming that Jews must not be permitted to build there.

 

[Shusha]

There are many Arabs living there and the EU illegally attempting to take as much of that land for the Arabs as possible.

Exactly. Its fine if Arabs build (create facts on the ground) in order to incorporate the disputed territory into their future state. Its even encouraged. But somehow ugly if the Jewish people do the same. Double standard.