Our Hearts Are Breaking

Human beings are not vermin; not any ethnic group.

That's the truth.

When a human being always rejects peace and incessantly tries to murder children, that human being is vermin.

That's very clever... It is still Antisemitism because you are saying that every member of a particular Semitic ethnic group has these traits. Every antisemite justifies his hatred in the same way.

You are demonizing an ethnic group.

Your lies are despicable. I have never supported anti-Semitism in any form whatsoever.



I merely condemn them for the bad behavior that they actually engage in.

And I am condemning you.

The fact that your condemnation is based on "you lying about everything I say" renders it harmless enough.

I suppose we should end this now (although it's been fun).

I was kind of curious if Finn would be willing to stick out his neck any further to defend you, I suppose the answer to that is 'no'.

So let's leave it there.

Here's the problem with your response max...

My comments directed to you had nothing to do with defending orally's indefensible characterization of Palestinians as "vermin," etc or trying to weasel him out of anything. If you can point to any indication that this is not the case, please do.

A reasonable reading of my post should have led you to understand that while I, by no means, consider the Palestinians innocent victims, I also do not consider them to be some sort of sub-human species deserving of extermination.

Do you see max? It is possible to address what I believe to be a rhetorical tactic, employed by you and other critics of Israel, without rendering any opinion on, let alone endorsing, orally's noxious sentiments. As for any possible suggestion that I was duty-bound to denounce his statements, all I can say is that when others exhibit the compulsion to reprimand the more extreme expressions of a position they, on the surface, share, perhaps I will consider joining them.

While hatred is hatred, and hate-speech is hate-speech, there is a clear distinction between the scope and effect of hatred historically directed at Palestinians and at Jews. Orally's hatred for Palestinians may not be very different from someone else's hatred for Jews, but it is not representative of a seething abhorrence that for centuries has festered throughout the world; frequently bursting forth in unspeakable acts of violence. Anti-Semitism is, however, such a hatred.

One need not minimize the plight of Palestinians by refusing to join their suffering with that of the Jews, and clearly the current Palestinian/Israeli conflict should not be a contest over which people's suffering has been worse, but I perceive the frequent inclusion, in debates on the conflict, of the attempt to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include Palestinians, as simply one more maneuver in an, at best, intellectually dishonest strategy to cast Israelis in the very same horrific role of Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusaders, Cossacks, Moors, Poles, Greeks, Russians and other peoples who led pogroms against Jews. It's kith and kin to the insistence of some to label Israel an apartheid state when such an argument is inaccurate and outrageous.

For some reason, in a world with a history of bloodshed that is staggering, where individual leaders have been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of not only "foreign enemies" but their own citizens, and places like Sudan, the Congo, Cuba, North Korea, Burma, China, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, and Rwanda receive, by comparison, virtually no attention by the left, the UN and the media, Israel, by any standard a beacon of democracy when viewed next to these other bad actors, is cast in the role of international pariah.

It's Israel, not North Korea or China or even Syria that gets the full attention of the NY Times, the Guardian and all the left-wing paladins of human rights who would combat the evil monster by calling for disinvestment in Israeli business, and the boycotting of academic and cultural exchange with the Beast. Never mind that the Israelis most inclined to agree with their assessment of the Israeli government operate in these last two spheres.

As one would expect, the argument that Israel is being "singled out" for disproportionate contempt, and punitive treatment has been addressed by Israel's most virulent critics, and their counter-argument is pretty lame:

1) It's not that we are ignoring the human rights crimes of these other nations, there's just a better chance that we can cure Israel of their evil ways.

Never mind that virtually no one in this group has ever attempted to bend the will of these other nations to their own, Israel is more likely to succumb to these bullying tactics because it actually cares how the rest of the world regards it. And the sense of Israel's shared heritage with the West of course explains the level of vitriol present in the attempts to show the nation most like our own the error of their ways. That's just the way one would treat a good friend or neighbor who has gotten off the beaten path of Western democracy.

2) There are only so many hours in the day and we have to carefully husband the energy available for fighting human-rights violators.

Yes, because devoting even one article a week or one speech a month to decrying the inhumane treatment of Tibetans by the Chinese, or shining the world's light on starving North Koreans, or Cuban journalist rotting in Castro’s jails will, at this critical juncture, sap the effort to rein in Israel of momentum. Hell, even JTT has the energy to take on Israel and the USA.

3) Some causes are more compelling than others. Due to America's history of white racism and settler colonialism, many Americans felt a special obligation to combat apartheid in South Africa, and so too do many Americans feel the need to end Israel's oppressive treatment of Palestinians because of our government's complicity.

Yeah right. This may sound good to some but it's still a crock. Under different circumstances, the very people who are making this argument would happily tear into it as more American self-absorption. "American's can't even come to the aid of victims of human rights violations unless it makes them feel good or is part of an American narrative!" Too bad for the Tibetan llamas whose thumbs have been cut off by the Chinese so that they can't complete their rituals with prayer beads, that Western settlers didn't kill Buddhist priest back in the 19th century.

As one American opponent of Israel, in making this argument put it:



And subjective and unconscious anti-Semitism can’t possibly be among those criteria for selecting Israel for their righteous attention?

Again, I don't think that anti-Semitism is behind all criticism of Israel's actions, but I do have to wonder what is behind the inability of so many of Israel's critics to acknowledge, without excusing, the Palestinian's crimes. I don't think that it's a coincidence that such critics, like Noam Chomsky, or our own JTT, are also virulent critics of the US, and suffer from amnesia when it comes to the murderous histories of the leftist regimes of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Sorry max but the only criticism of Israel (and it certainly deserves criticism) that I respect is made by those who don't cast the Palestinians in the same victim's role of Jews during the Holocaust, the Inquisition and numerous pogroms, or South Africans during apartheid, and my own criticism of the latter is not evidence of a tolerance for or shared hatred of the Jews' fellow Semites, the Palestinians.

My response to you was based on your response to a post that was part of my discussion of Oralloy, that is why I interpreted it as a defense of him.

I respect your latest post. I am not in the same boat as JTT or Chomsky. I do not equate the Holocaust with the current conflict. However I am frustrated with Israel and particularly frustrated with the role of the United States (my country) in the conflict.

The big difference between Israel is a major concern for me, as American, is that we are deeply connected to Israel. We have provided them military and economic support for years. We have have shielded them from political pressure including using our security council veto. No other country has had the support from the American power that Israel has had.

I take the abuses committed by Israel against an occupied people personally. They are my responsibility.

I feel the expansion of the settlements is an injustice that makes peace even less likely. A big part of the reason that Israel feels it can do this is because of the comfort that American support gives to it... any official criticism of settlement expansion is accompanied by a nudge nudge, wink wink.

Israel has a big decision to make about what kind of society they want to be. If the United States isn't going to push them constructively into making the sacrifices needed for a just peace, then at least we should get out of the way and let the parties struggle it out.

But as it is, the United States is making things worse. There are two obvious fair solutions... one is a viable independent Palestinian State around the 1967 borders. The other is a multi-ethnic democracy that includes all inhabitants. The unfair solutions involve further forced relocations or a continual occupation. Both of these come with consequences that Israel should face if they choose this path.

Any good solution involves stopping settlement expansion. The United States should stop any support until this happens.

My characterization is entirely defensible. What is wrong with it?



What criticism do they deserve in your view?

While no one is perfect, it's pretty hard to see where they are doing anything wrong.

Let me guess. You're unhappy that they refuse to just lay down and die?



"Political pressure" is a quaint way of describing "outright anti-Semitism at the UN".



No such abuses.



Your feelings are no substitute for actual facts however.

Halting the expansion of settlements is a concession that needs to be traded at the bargaining table for a similar concession from the Palestinians (perhaps an end to the sermons preaching hate towards Israel).

The injustice here is your demand that Israel give up concession after concession while the Palestinians are allowed to refuse to make any move of their own towards achieving peace.



The reason Israel continues settlement expansion is because the Palestinians refuse to negotiate in good faith to achieve peace.



The United States has always pushed Israel constructively. But there is little that we can do about the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make peace.



Hard to see how.

Are we responsible for the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make peace?



I see nothing unfair about clearing the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

Quite frankly, they're asking for it.



"Forcing Israel to give up concessions while the Palestinians are allowed to refuse to compromise" is not a good solution. It would be profoundly unfair and unjust.

Israel would just decide to do without our aid. That would require that they become more proactive about keeping their neighbors beaten down. Not really a step towards regional peace.

First of all, I apologize for referring to you as orally in my response to max. It was an error and not an intended as a perversion of your actually screen-name. I guess "orally" is be pretty tame compared to what others have used but it still wasn't my intent.

The Palestinians aren't vermin. There are many murderers among them who seek annihilation of Israel, not peace, and too many who while not bloodying their own hands support and cheer the murderers, but classifying an entire people as despicable goes too far and is not, in my mind defensible. If you care to try, go ahead.

Israel, in my opinion, deserves criticism for the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. It is unnecessarily provocative and involves the seizing of land from Palestinians. Regardless of what their original intent may or may not have been, it is quite clear that expansion is an obstacle to peace. There are enough obstacles without creating more.

In addition, as you noted, no one is perfect and neither is any nation. Supporters of Israel should not fall into the trap of defending it from each and every charge levied by it's critics simply because so many charges involve distortions of the truth and inflamed rhetoric bordering on, if not representing, a pathological hatred of the nation.

Finn, you can't have it both ways... one post in one post you reject and distance yourself from Oralloy's ugly rhetoric, and the next you sound almost sympathetic. Ethnic hatred is not "going to far" (as if a little ethnic hatred is going just far enough).

When you rejected Oralloy's hatred, I accepted it. I immediately stopped tying you to Oralloy (and I felt bad for doing so originally). You posted a reasonable post and I responded in kind.

But then this squishy post? What the ****?

If you are going to reject Oralloy's pathological hatred, then reject it outright. Otherwise you have no right to complain if you are tied to it.

Since JTT made the connection in his thread supporting lynching (ironically entitled "Justice"), I will repeat it here.

Oralloy is to Finn and JTT is to Max (except you don't see me treating JTT's pathological extremism with any sympathy).

I am willing to to distance myself from anyone who is full of crap even if they are on my "side".

I didn't support lynching, Max. You are making silly, unjustified assumptions.

You referred to a lynching as "justice", did you not?

We agree on the expansion of settlements.

We don't agree that individual Americans should feel personally responsible for any action taken by Israel. If you wish to, that's obviously your choice, but I don't accept it as a reasonable explanation for focusing on Israel to the exclusion of demonstrably worse nations, and I certainly don't accept it as an excuse not to criticize Palestinians with at least equal vigor. This is not to say that you practice either dodge. I simply don't know your positions well enough to conclude with any certainty that you do. It does however, seem to me, that you give too much of a free pass to the Palestinians who, in my opinion, are more deserving of criticism than Israel. I could be wrong about this, however it is my impression.

As I have noted to oralloy, the entirety of the Palestinian people are not directly responsible for the heinous deeds of those who proclaim they represent them, nor are they indirectly so. However a majority of those living in Gaza elected a terrorist group to lead them. Whether or not their votes were cast for a party that might improve their standard of living more so than the PLO, they, better than you or I, knew what Hamas had done in the past, was capable of doing in the future and indeed what they had vowed to do. Those that voted for Hamas bear responsibility for its actions.

At this point a focus on the perfect or "fair" resolution of the conflict is pointless. The best and only possible solution, short of genocide, is the establishment of an independent, autonomous Palestinian state. Whether any one considers a single state solution to be "fair" (and I don't) it isn't going to happen. It always amuses me how so many people who are forever making the point that the US cannot impose its notions of what a free and democratic society is on other nations and cultures, feel perfectly justified in telling Israel what it looks like and demanding they put it in place. Again, I don't know if you fit this description, but am not asserting you do. Whether any of Israel's critics like it or not Israel is a Jewish state, and it is not going to surrender this status to demographics. If I'm not mistaken, even Chomsky has urged the Palestinians to let go the "Right of Return" as not only a negotiating demand, but as a pipe-dream. The intent behind this demand is not in the least a desire for the formation of a multi-ethnic democracy in which Muslims and Jews can live in peace. It is a demand that Israel as a Jewish state allow itself to be eliminated, and in the worst case, a plan to drive Jews out of the region.

The term "viable" when used in conjunction with a "Palestinian State" is terribly loaded, and yet another stumbling block to resolution.

Certainly proposals have been made with the intent to create a Palestine without any hope of economic sustainability beyond an impoverished basket-case status, but these are made with the same degree of "bad faith" inherent in the demand for the "Right of Return." To the extent Israel’s leaders hold on to them they must set them aside and return to “good faith” negotiations. However, disguising other demands totally unacceptable to Israel as a requirement for "viability" is just another of the endless games being played within the framework of a peace process.

It is in Israel's interest to assure that the economic viability of a Palestinian state is possible, but it cannot be expected to take whatever steps might be necessary to guarantee that it is. The Palestinians want to exercise the right to self-governance and with this is the responsibility to govern with competence. Thus far there has been little evidence that the current leaders are capable of such a thing and Israel can't be expected to create a state where economic vitality and government corruption and incompetence co-exist.

The fact of the matter is that Israeli governments have come to the peace table prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for peace, while the Palestinians have not. Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated as a result of his efforts to achieve peace through the Oslo Accords. Arafat continued to line his pockets at the expense of his people.

Palestinians have been horrible served by "leaders" who were never willing to ride the peace horse to the finish either because of their own fears for their personal safety or what they personally gained by prolonging the conflict.

The bottom line is that Israel holds the better hand. It has healthy economy and a relatively affluent and content populace, despite the constant threat of violence. Palestinians on the other hand have a very sick economy, considerable discontent and the reality of violence. Acts of terrorism have been ongoing for decades and have not brought them closer to their goals. The under-dog status they enjoy in the global community keeps them in foreign financial aid and the allegiance of the global Left, but despite decades of external criticism and pressure, the conflict has not been resolved. Their supporters around their world are not doing them any favors

Israel has been prepared to resolve the conflict, but their offers were never enough, there were always more demands, including those with no chance of being met. It is time for the Palestinians to realize that any goal to rule the entire country or drive out all Jews will not be achieved. That if they truly are interested in having their own nation they need to drop the demand for the perfectly "fair" resolution (especially where "fair" means to their advantage) and the desire and expectation of a "victory" over Israel. They need to accept the best deal they can get and move on with establishing a future free of violent conflict and the attendant poverty, for their children.

There is less of a reason for Israel's leaders to want constant conflict than there is for the leaders of Hamas and the PLO. Israelis want peace as much or more than the Palestinians, but the Palestinians need it more than the Israelis. Israeli's have a future with or without the conflict, Palestinians do not.

Israel's interests are obviously served by having a peaceful Palestinian neighbor, but they are also served by having an economically viable peaceful neighbor. Give Israel reason to trust the peaceful intent of that neighbor and they do everything they can to make sure it succeeds.

No. Why do you keep leaping to these wild assumptions?

But this isn't about me. This is about you. You tell Finn he has to condemn Oralloy totally or he is tied to Oralloy and his nutty notions.

Doesn't that follow to the much much more vicious war crimes and terrorism, the agent orange, the depleted uranium. Oralloy is a nut case but he doesn't murder millions, rape women, kill children, poison people's homes and lands, bomb villagers into oblivion, ... .

Perhaps I'm wrong and you are going to direct me to those postings where you have categorically condemned the USA for all these centuries of vicious, horrendous crimes against humanity.

I want Finn to condemn Oralloy the same way that I condemn you. That seems fair to me, I am sure Finn understands this..

Of course it seems fair to you, Max the incredible hypocrite.

Talk about avoiding the issues. Talk about inane tangents. You caught yourself out and the first thing you do to try to extricate yourself is patent dishonesty.

You don't condemn me. You engage whenever you think you've got a gotcha. You're now trying to make a pretense that you condemn, and for what, telling the truth.

Y'all are so lame. If what I post was false, you'd be all over it like y'all are all over Oralloy, cj, h2oman, okie, ... . Instead you run like the cowards you are. Like you're doing now, Max.

Perhaps I'm still wrong and you are going to direct me to those postings where you have categorically condemned the USA for all these centuries of vicious, horrendous crimes against humanity.