The Jews.

Well, the talk of anti-semitism had (until we posted) indeed not been about Palestinians - about the Muslim world at large, yes, and specifically, in this discussion just now, about the Catholic Church.

I dont think the terrorism of the Palestinians is "racially motivated" - it's motivated by a hate of Israel. This hate fersure will have strengthened anti-semitic prejudice among Palestinians as well - but they're not blowing themselves up in order to rid the world of the Jews - they're blowing themselves up in order to get the Jews off of what they consider their land - just a small piece of the world.

Same vice versa. Are the terrorist attacks by Israeli militants motivated by "anti-Goyism", by a hate of what is non-Jewish? Nonsense. It is motivated by a hate of the Arabs who are, to their mind, on "their land". The settlers who occupy ever new Palestinian hilltops and settlements, and will shoot to chase the Palestinians away, do not do that in order to rid the world of Arabs - just to rid the same small piece of the world they consider theirs of them.

None of it has any relevance to InfraBlue's allegations of Judaic "anti-Christianity and anti-goyism".

The Israel/Palestine conflict is not about anti-semitism or anti-Islamism, though it sure does its work to strengthen both - its about Israel/Palestine.

On that issue, we obviously agree:



<nods>.

I know I'm a little behind on y'all right now, but please note the next post - cause I think the report Cav linked to has gone unchallenged thus far, whereas its really quite pernicious.

The chart Cav linked to made me suspicious at first, then even a little angry.

The research clearly intends to stake out the claim that, contradictory to the "image of Israel as the villain", its the Israelis who are the bigger victims.

It starts to do so by a fair enough way: by separating combatants from non-combatants.

However, this still does not work, because even these "more meaningful figures show that Israel is responsible for some 733 Palestinian noncombatant deaths, while Palestinians have killed 546 Israeli noncombatants."

So they add step two. They show that more of the Palestinian victims are men - and are young men (i.e., between 10 and 29 years old).

Now, considering Israelis die in terrorist attacks - targeted at random by nature - and Palestinians are more likely to die in street clashes and the like, you might just go, well, duh. But the report attaches far-reaching conclusions to this.

First, it concludes that the figures show that the Palestinian victims must be "Palestinian men and boys engaged in behavior that brought them into conflict with Israeli armed forces".

Second, it attributes blame on this basis: "Certainly [..] these Palestinian men and boys (or, in the case of the younger ones, their parents and teachers) have to have been aware that they were placing themselves in harm’s way."

Note - the victim is blamed.

We are talking Palestians even the research dubs "non-combatants" - from which they've already filtered not just "combatants", but "probable combatants" and "violent protestors" as well (see the more detailed report). These are people who are not known to have engaged in any violence themselves.

They still number higher than the equivalent number of Israeli non-combatant deaths, however, so the research succeeds to blame them for being in "harm's way". Peaceful protestor? You've placed yourself in harm's way. Hung about on a crossroads (which, especially in a Muslim country, more young men than women will do) - and got hit when gunfight suddenly erupted? You've placed yourself in harm's way.

And if you dont count all those people who "placed themselves in harm's way" - then, you see, the Israelis are more often non-combatant victim of Israel/Palestine violence after all.

It goes on, because - third - on no specified basis, other than free interpretation, whatsoever, the research succeeds to conclude the following about all those non-violent people who put themselves "in harm's way":

"In fact, the highly specific pattern of Palestinian noncombatant fatalities suggests that many of these deaths have resulted from an active Palestinian indoctrination campaign glorifying 'martyrdom'".

So the real guilty party behind all those non-violent 10-30 year-olds who were killed by Israelis is the "active Palestinian indoctrination campaign", for, the report specifies, "effectively encouraging boys and young men to confront Israeli forces and risk death even when there was no real likelihood of causing material harm to Israelis."

Thats right.

First, no 10-30 year old would spontaneously go out to protest the occupation of his town or country - he must have been "indoctrinated" to do so.

And, second, considering he would only have his person with him and no weapons to actually "cause any material harm to Israelis" with, he must have been out to become a "martyr".

Thus he can be blamed either himself or through his indoctrinators when he is indeed shot dead by those Israelis. His death and that of hundreds of his peers is merely, as the report's headline has it, an "ENGINEERED TRAGEDY".

c.i., Craven, I'm not naive enough to think that 'none' was the answer to the query. It's just a useless debate really, as everyone in this conflict has blood on their hands, regarding Israel. Craven, I know the story you are talking about. If I am thinking of the same story (was it in New York? If not, then I don't know it) it was an accident, proven in court, but not before the man was dragged from his car and beaten within an inch of his life by black folks in the neighbourhood, who naturally assumed the Jew man did it on purpose. But I digress....

The problem with the 'net in terms of this discussion is that it is such a quagmyre of anti-semitism and radical thought. If it teaches us anything, it's that hatred is real all around, and that most sources on the topic that one can Google are untrustworthy at best and at worst, blatant racism.

I think au1929's point was just that perhaps we should get back to discussing historical anti-semitism not related to the Israel-Palestine thing which is getting monotonous. Perhaps we might actually learn something.

Like here for example:

http://www.theology.edu/response.htm

I don't understand what you are saying here. You "missed me"?

Since Craven had more or less stepped away from arguing that anti-goyism was in league with anti-Semitism, and had seemingly asked that we not go down that path--and since I discounted the JDL as an anti-goyim group--and had never heard of attacks of the others--I felt the point had been made.

I had planned to look into the groups Craven mentioned, but didn't think I'd find any significant murders attributable to these groups--so put the research on the back burner. I am still going to read for my own interest--but felt it was a moot point, really.

This is why my response was as it was. I do appreciate you bringing the information in.

Hey nimh, it's not "my" chart. It was done by a neutral anti-terrorism group. There is a link to the full study at the bottom of the page, where there is more clarification as to how the study was done.

Sofia, we posted at the same time, that's all. I think you may find the last link I posted of some interest.

I clicked through to that and used the details of that one in my post above, too, as you can see.

My objection is not about "how the study was done" - its about the logic of the interpretation they assert. I got really angry about it - but I hope that I restrained myself in my post above to purely analytical criticism.

I would be curious to know what you (or Sofia, who praised the link earlier on, or others here) think of it.

Fair enough point about "Cav's chart", by the way - I often link stuff I would not like to be personally connected to, as well - I had already changed the wording in my post above to "the report Cav linked to", but had forgotten to do so in the long post.

Oh come on! I stated since the very beginning that I never sought to equate the two, how is that backing off? At every turn I asserted that in modern times the hate crimes against Jews are not comparable to the hate crimes by Jews. My qualm was simply against the notion that it had never happened. Since the post I will reference I have said that I agreed with au in that they are not equatable jsut that there is not an absolute dearth.

LOL - and thank you!

Thanks to this line of yours I became curious enough to check out the homepage of the report's publisher ... and it explains a lot <grins>.

Its the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel, right?

These are the people on the Institute's Board of Directors:

cav, I've always been of the opinion that most groups on this planet has bloody hands. When anybody in that group claims otherwise, it's up to 'somebody' to refute such claims. My ancestry is Japanese, third generation American. As proud as I am of being of Japanese ancestry, I know the history of Japan and the atrocities they have wrought against its neighbors. I can live with that 'fact,' because it's the 'truth' with many facts to back it up. As an individual, I detest any form of discrimination and bigotry. That doesn't mean I will not try to seek out the truth if extreme claims are made for any group. Finally, cav, you claim, "If it teaches us anything, it's that hatred is real all around, and that most sources on the topic that one can Google are untrustworthy at best and at worst, blatant racism." If any part of Google links are "untrustworthy" as it is shared on A2K, it's up to the individual that challenges it to prove otherwise. Blanket refutaions are not credible IMHO. Many will continue to use Google as our search engine.

Don't you think the chart Cav referenced about the combatants and non-combatants reviews a worthwhile distinction?

I hate myself for following this line of discussion-- I really think anti-Semitism is accurately studied by events outside Israel--but doesn't targeting terrorists and targeting civilians a distinction to you, nimh, or others?

It makes a big difference to me. Thing is, the majority of those killed on both sides are not terrorists. That speaks volumes about the inadequacies of the "targeting".

<repressing the urge to blurt out, "did you read my post, at all?!">

'K, i failed to repress it.

I have few qualms with the very first two paragraphs of the summary. There they reduce one set of numbers - almost 1900 Palestinians killed, 700 Israelis - to a set focusing only on non-combatants: 733 Palestinians, 546 Israelis.

The difference between the two is, indeed, "a worthwhile distinction", even if the report's numbers are dubious.
My problem is with all of the rest of the article, with its many graphs, which focuses solely on this latter set of numbers: on those non-combatants. Non-combatants, Sofia - not terrorists - but civilians.

Note that the definition of non-combatant they use already excludes "probable combatants" and "violent protestors". For example, a "probable combatant" is anyone who, "when Israeli soldiers returned fire in response to shots fired from a particular location", was in that particular location when he got killed. Or anyone who "enter[ed] an area in which fighting was going on". Those people are not included in the second set.

Yet still the report makes the case that even the remaining figure - which is still higher than the equivalent number of Israeli victims - shouldnt be taken for what it is - and that the Palestinians included in that figure basically have themselves and "the Palestinian indoctrination campaign" to blame - not the Israelis who killed them.

Thats where my problem with this piece of propaganda is - because thats what it is, unsurprisingly if you look at who directs the institute - as I explained in detail above.

nimh--

I had read your post. You just possibly don't like my response, or the thought behind it.

How many street protests do you witness via news? There are masses of Palestinian youths, actively confronting Israeli troops with whatever is handy. Sometimes sticks and rocks, sometimes guns and Molotov cocktails. (And, who knows what it is, until it hits you, or someone else?) While this doesn't mean I think they should be killed for it; most murdered Jews are sitting on a bus or in a restaurant.

I think it is fair to discuss the difference. And, to put it on a pie chart. I'm not throwing away your information or analysis--I am merely adding mine.

c.i., I have no plans on ditching my Google ....still the best search engine out there. I was just commenting on the fact that when one searches for relevant information on a hotbed political subject, all the kooks come out of the woodwork, so to speak. It can be hard to filter out the legitimate sources from the over-the-top.

nimh, I suppose this is what I was saying to c.i. regarding Google searches. I agree with c.i. that the individual has to take everything into account for themselves. It looked sound enough to me, to you it's propaganda. The question is, during a time of war who's propoganda is more palateable to you? That's really what it comes down to, which is why these particular debates have very few answers. Let's face it, if even the supposedly 'real' news can't be trusted, what's the point in debating?

Amnesty International condemns civilian deaths on both sides. I think that's fair enough. I also think it does Sofia a disservice regarding her original query to drag this into the quagmire of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, which is really about land and politics, with religion as a smokescreen.

If you had, why were you talking about "targeting terrorists", when my post was about how the report laid blame for the killing of non-combatants - with those non-combatants defined about as strictly as you can get, excluding "violent protestors", too?

I dont like it if I think someone is calling shooting at people defined as non-combatants in this way, "targeting terrorists", no, you're right. Guess I misread.

And no, I dont mind people "putting the difference [between combatants and non-combatants] in a pie chart ... I dont mind data.

What I mind is the subsequent argument, where the authors use a further series of pie charts on age and gender of non-combatants as fodder for an interpretation which literally blames them for their own deaths (or their parents, in any case).

These are people already defined as not having engaged in violence, neither in some terrorist or armed attack nor through protesting violently. Yet they are blamed cause they shouldnt have "placed themselves in harm's way [..] engaging in behavior that brought them into conflict with Israeli armed forces". Think about this! These people believe their land has been occupied by Israel. What means of protest do the authors consider legitimate for them to engage in?

They cant vote ... actual violence, terrorist attacks, etc, is obviously unexcusable ... a "thousand men march" on Israel's parliament is pretty much out of the question, too, what with roadblocks and "the fence" - and even if they "confront" the only presence of the occupying authority in their town, the IDF, without using violence, according to this argument, they should only expect to be killed ...

What kind of legitimate dissent against the occupation do the authors suggest for Palestinians to take up?

None, imho - thats why its important to recognize and 'out' it, which I tried to do.


I agree with that - land/politics rather than religion is the crux. Thaz why I didnt think either Palestinian or Israeli extremism should be included in above-used categorisations of anti-semitism and (purported) anti-goyism.


Just like you've posted some helpful instructive links, I've posted some lengthy stuff about Jews in Eastern Europe. Sad thing is, often only your controversial posts will be picked up on in a thread - which thus far has mainly come down to "anti-goyism" and Israel/Palestine. <shrugs>

Still, you're right - and I won't post anything on Israel/Palestine anymore.

nimh, I will go back and check out those links. Also, there are sooo many threads on A2K about Israel-Palestine it makes my head spin. I figured Sofia wanted information on a different topic. In fact, a bit later, I will reread this whole thing from the beginning. I do have to admit getting a larf at some of the posts though.

Yeh, you're right - about the topic-thing!

Considering I, ahem, ended my last post on Israel/Palestine with a bit of a whopper of a rhetorical question, and I dont want it to continue on this thread anymore, I split it off into a separate one: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13861 <nods>