I have no opinion on the matter--except that I like Carter for his support of GM crops--but I'm curious: what was so bad about him as a president? — jamalrob

Long fuel lines at gas stations, weak foreign policy resulting in Iran hostages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Russian wheat debacle, and I'm sure there's more, but just can't remember. America was weak, which made room for Reagan, much like Obama has made room for Trump (a joke, only sort of).

His more recent positions on Israel have been atrocious, although I'm sure you disagree with my assessment.

Long fuel lines at gas stations, weak foreign policy resulting in Iran hostages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, Russian wheat debacle, and I'm sure there's more, but just can't remember. America was weak, which made room for Reagan, much like Obama has made room for Trump (a joke, only sort of). — Hanover

Doesn't sound all that bad to be honest, but what do I know?

His more recent positions on Israel have been atrocious, although I'm sure you disagree with my assessment. — Hanover

Now wait just a minute. I don't recall saying anything about Israel on this forum or the last one.

Well, almost no one, politician or otherwise, outside the states is as rabidly biased towards Israel as those inside that bubble so @Hanover's assumption is not all that unfair.

Well, there's certainly a rabid bias against Israel infecting the rest of the world right now so I suppose you're kind of right.

The Muslim world is just misunderstood, but the Jewish world is evil. Such is the narrative.

Thankfully not everyone on the Left falls for it.

Israel is not the Jewish world. The Jewish world as a whole is mostly very secular and forward looking (unlike a lot of the Muslim world obviously).

Just to note that in roughly the past week or two I've been accused of being a regressive reactionary, a misogynist, a lefty racist, and worst of all, a liberal (thanks @The Great Whatever !). I hope it's possible to have a discussion about Israeli government policy without having anti-Semite added to the list.

In my view, anti-Semitism is crucial to a discussion about the current political campaigns against Israel and the general attitudes towards it (though I have no special interest in accusing you personally of anti-Semitism).

I didn't say anti-Semitism was irrelevant. All I am saying is that it's possible to criticize Israeli government policy without being anti-Semitic. There are obviously opponents to the government both within and outside Israel who are Jewish, for example. And the effort to brand every critic of Israel an anti-Semite (I'm not saying you are part of that btw) is a fairly pernicious way to shut down debate.

I was just pointing out that it was relevant, and I was aware you didn't say it wasn't. As for your last statement, there are serious thinkers who suggest there's an underlying resurgence in anti-Semitism that accounts for much of the recent anti-Israel stuff. Is such a position necessarily pernicious? I can't tell if you would say this counted as "branding every critic of Israel an anti-semite", but if not, and you meant it literally, then of course I agree.

I meant it literally so we agree on that. I don't agree that anti-Semitism plays much of a part in anti-Israeli sentiment on the left. I think it's part of the same vein of politics that feeds anti-US sentiment and no-one is accusing those criticizing the US of being anti-Christian. And on the other side, I wouldn't expect to be accused of Islamophobia for my criticisms of the behaviour of Hamas, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, for example. But there are two debates here: One concerns the extent to which anti-Semitism plays a part in the debate and the other is the debate itself, i.e. to what extent Israeli policy is justified. I think you can look at the second question simply on its own merits as an ethical issue without having to get bogged down in the first. (Otherwise, you are left with a classic case of poisoning the well).

The Muslim world is just misunderstood, but the Jewish world is evil. Such is the narrative. — Hanover

I will say this, there is a narrative that Jews are rich, cunning, shady and an integral part of a powerful cabal that rule the world, and this can sometimes bleed into the Israel vs Palestine debate. But in so far as it does, it bleeds in from the right. It's almost exclusively right-wing morons like David Duke and others who feed this kind of paranoia, not the left. And they usually hate Muslims as much as Jews.

But in so far as it does, it bleeds in from the right. It's almost exclusively right-wing morons... — Baden

I think you'd need to argue for this, not only because left-wing anti-semitism is a very well-known phenomenon going back to the nineteenth century, but especially because it contradicts numerous recent commentators who have brought our attention to the modern variant, e.g., Owen Jones, Nick Cohen, Simon Schama and Howard Jacobson--few if any of whom are uncritical of Israel (Jacobson being the least critical, I think). And these are respected independent writers making their cases in a calm and reasonable way--they're not idiots, trolls, propagandists, or loonies.

And there's also the testimony of people formerly involved with pro-Palestinian campaigns, like Alex Chalmers.

Whether you agree with their assessment or not, the fact that it's not just an oddball claim demands that you do more than flatly deny it (if you're up for continuing the discussion, that is).

Incidentally, which debate you regard as the real one is probably a matter of taste: some of us might prefer to talk about left-wing anti-semitism than about whether Israel's actions are justified. In any case, I think the two can be hard to separate.

Ok, I'll look up some of authors you mentioned on this. But my point about poisoning the well stands. It may be that anti-Semitism comes into the conversation somewhere but it shouldn't be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. I'll leave it at that for now.

Israel is not the Jewish world. The Jewish world as a whole is mostly very secular and forward looking (unlike a lot of the Muslim world obviously). — Baden

Sure, and Israel is also largely secular and forward looking. I don't know why you draw a distinction between secular/religious, forward looking/backward looking, and Israeli Jews/American Jews. You're just a labeler, trying to divide my people so that you can conquer us.

"Semitic" as an ethnic group is more expansive than "Jewish", isn't it? The Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians are all Semites. The Arabs are semitic. Then there is language. Arabian is spoken in parts of northern Africa whose people are not ethnic Arabian. French and English are spoken by people who are not remotely European. Multiple cultural influences have cross hatched the Middle East, flowing from Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Rome, and farther afield.

Christianity's deepest roots are Semitic--one of those inconvenient truths.

Antisemites, as a group, really shouldn't like Saudis any more than they like Jews, if they are going to be consistent. Religious antisemites might specialize in disliking Islam or Judaism. Cultural antisemitics have a rich variety of things to dislike -- Moslem and Orthodox Jewish dress, clannishness (which of course never occurred anywhere in the world except in the Middle East or the shtetl, right?), dietary habits -- shelters which never serve pork at meals for fear a Moslem might be offended, even though 99% of shelter beneficiaries prefer pork, and so on and on and on.

You got me.

But my point about poisoning the well stands. It may be that anti-Semitism comes into the conversation somewhere but it shouldn't be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. — Baden

Well, nothing should be used as a cudgel to stifle debate. Portraying the accusation of anti-semitism as a debate-stifling cudgel is partly what these authors are taking issue with. It's the crux of the biscuit.

"Semitic" as an ethnic group is more expansive than "Jewish", isn't it? The Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians are all Semites. The Arabs are semitic. Then there is language. Arabian is spoken in parts of northern Africa whose people are not ethnic Arabian. French and English are spoken by people who are not remotely European. Multiple cultural influences have cross hatched the Middle East, flowing from Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Rome, and farther afield.

Antisemites, as a group, really shouldn't like Saudis any more than they like Jews, if they are going to be consistent. — Bitter Crank

Anti-semitism is prejudice against Jews. That's what it means, and it's what it has meant since it was coined. You might argue that it was mis-named, of course.

But as it happens there used to be (I'm not aware if it's still around, except for in Iran) an anti-Arab prejudice that was similar to antisemitism, Arabs being portrayed as avaricious and untrustworthy (I found an example of this just recently in a hideous sci-fi book by Larry Niven).

Christianity's deepest roots are Semitic--one of those inconvenient truths.

Why is this inconvenient for Christianity? Christianity transcends ethnicity doesn't it? Christian anti-semitism is (or was) about the religion. It was only in the late nineteenth century that anti-semitism became racialized.

This sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it. On the one hand, you seem to want to say that the positions of those who would debate you on this issue are infected by anti-semitism (to me that's clearly poisoning the well) and on the other hand you want to say if they decide it's pointless to debate you on those grounds that should also be taken as a sign of what? More antisemitism? Something else? I'd have to read the authors myself before I could comment in detail but I don't see how you can have it both ways.

In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate.

No, I am saying that the accusation of antisemitism is not always a "cudgel used to stifle debate", as you are implying it always is. And I am saying it is relevant. I am responding to your rhetorical attempts to smear all accusations of antisemitism. It's the very thing at issue, and would need to be debated. I recognize that I would have to actually argue that much of the anti-Israel sentiment of recent years is inspired partly by antisemitism. Likewise, you have to argue that it is not--rather than throwing spitballs.

Just read my posts.

I think if you read over that again you might see the humour in what you've written particularly the part about me smearing accusations of antisemitism. Anyway, as I said, when I get a chance I'll read some of the authors you've mentioned in order to try to get more insight into your viewpoint. Until then I'm not really in a position to debate the issue in any detail.

I think if you read over that again you might see the humour in what you've written particularly the part about me smearing accusations of antisemitism. — Baden

I started out by saying I thought there was an anti-Israel bias outside America, then went on to say I thought antsemitism was very relevant to a discussion of anti-Israel sentiment, and then defended the notion that antisemitism underlies some anti-Israel movements as a legitimate, serious position that cannot be dismissed. I don't see the humour, unfortunately.

You gave me some references, which I said more than once I'd read and get back to you on. And I will do that when I have time.

In any case, critics of Israeli policy include Jews and non-Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis alike so obviously antisemitism is not necessarily a part of such critiques. But the accusation of antisemitism is such a serious one that of course it's likely to put off debate. — Baden

The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of. Israel appears to be specially targeted, and because it is Jewish run, it leads some to conclude it is the Jewishness of the nation that provides the basis for being targeted. Considering Jews have long been subject to unfair criticism (many of which you pointed out), it doesn't seem such a stretch to believe that the current criticisms of Israel are just part of this same historical criticism.

So, yes, Israel, like all nations, has policies that aren't internally consistent, are entirely self-interested, that might be hypocritical, and that might even be unjustified to the objective observer. These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms.

The reason that some associate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism is because there does appear to be an over-analysis of Israeli policy (like should they develop certain areas of their country and how they should defend themselves from enemies) in comparison to how other countries are analyzed. It is only Israel that actually has to justify its own existence and state its legitimate claim to its own land, a requirement that all other nations are relieved of. — Hanover

What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist? Of course there are some groups (like Hamas) and countries (like Iran) that do and I have no problem with that claim being called antisemitic but that's not part of the mainstream debate in Europe or the rest of the western world. As for the claim to its own land, that depends on what you mean by "it's own land". No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution.

Which brings me to the main point: Do you not think the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to some of the land in the region, at least the Palestinian territories? Because at the moment that is occupied by Israeli troops. If they do have a legitimate claim to that land, then should not Israel remove its army and stop the building of settlements there.

These policies however aren't of such magnitude that Israel ought to always remain under the microscope anymore than should the policies of the various European nations that offer these criticisms. — Hanover

Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott? The reason Israel is under the microscope is that in the view of many -who not unreasonably believe that the Palestinians have as much a right to self-determination as the Israelis do- it is colonizing (or settling if you prefer) another's territory. It has built roads in the Palestinian territories that only its settlers can use. It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other. The only reason it is not under UN sanctions for these and other actions is that the US has on several occasions used its veto to prevent that eventuality. These are not minor details, nor of course are the facts that Israel is a tiny country surrounded by largely hostile neighbours and is currently in a state of low level war with the Palestinians. But the comparison with European nations who are critics of Israel just doesn't work as far as I can see.

Anyway, this really boils down to the following, and I would really like to understand your point of view: While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized?

What European or other developed nation questions the right of Israel to exist? — Baden

The proposed two state solution is problematic because the Palestinians reject that idea and wish to push the Israelis into the sea (or some such rhetoric). Those who advocate the two state solution do so with the understanding that Palestine does not want a two state solution, but wish to destroy it. So, when you say "what European nation questions Israel's right to exist," my response is any that believes ceding authority or land to a hostile nation and who wishes to destroy it.

No-one is arguing Tel Aviv is not legitimately Israel's but there is reason to think that Jerusalem should be shared with the Palestinians as both peoples have in recent times controlled it or parts of it and both lay claim to it. And there is certainly reason to think that the West Bank which is part of the Palestinian territories should be considered legitimately Palestinian land. You do not automatically get a moral right to own land simply because you are presently in charge of it. Historical context has to be taken into consideration. And the context suggests the dividing up of the land in the region rather than giving it all to one or the other party is the only fair solution. — Baden

Please. There is no universal standard to determine who gets to control land. It makes no more sense to say that an aboriginal tribe gets to keep its land because great great grandpa was the first to build a hut there than it does to say that another nation gets to control it because it was taken forcibly in war. Why the Irish get to be in Ireland is no more justified than allowing the Americans to occupy Indian lands or why Russia gets to be in the Crimea. What is unique about Israel is that it alone is forced to justify its occupation of various parts of the country, including those won in a defensive war, notwithstanding the fact that some of those militarily won lands have already been gratuitously returned.

And so it comes down to why Israeli occupation of lands is of such international consequence and why they in particular have to engage in offering a moral basis for their occupation. Whether Britain gets to hold on to Belfast hardly seems a matter for my consideration.

Do you really think though that if Israel had been set up in Europe and was living peacefully with its neighbours like Sweden, Holland or Ireland are, it would be subject to threats of economic boycott? — Baden

Not to quibble with wording, but "set up" suggests an artificial creation. We don't hypothesize about what might have been had Ireland been set up in Madagascar and could therefore have avoided the troubles it had with Britain. Israel is in fact trying to live in peace and only doing what is necessary to protect itself from constant terroristic attacks. If Mexico demanded the return of their native Texas and lobbed missiles over the border, no one would question a ferocious response from the US, and no one would offer great sympathies if Mexico became part of the US.

It has soldiers and roadblocks there that can prevent Palestinians travelling from one place to another even in the case of emergency. And it has a built a security wall within the territories that separates Palestinians families and villages from each other. — Baden

You build a great case for Palestinian sympathy by pointing out the disruption in their lives at the hands of a tyrannical oppressor as long as you ignore the reason why such measures are required. Would you live in Israel if they didn't have such measures, or might you feel some comfort that someone was trying to be sure that you actually were alive to wake up the morning?

While we both accept absolutely that Israelis have a right to self-determination and legitimate claims to some of the land in the region, do you accept that Palestinians also have also have a right to self-determination and a legitimate claim to some of the land there? And, if so, how do you think that claim should be realized? — Baden

Of course, in a ideal world, we'd just go down the deed office at the courthouse, pull out the plats, and mark which land each got, file it in, stamp it, shake hands, and call one another "neighbor." Unfortunately, this isn't just a dispute over borders and plats. It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't.

of various parts of the country, including those won in a defensive war, notwithstanding the fact that some of those — Hanover

But, but, you just contradicted yourself there, Sir.

How did I contradict myself? I said that the Israelis won some land in a war, that they weren't required to return it, but they gratuitously did return some of it. Does that somehow make them required to return all of it?