"So God-soaked violence became genetically coded."

Don't be too hard on Bill Moyers. Being familiar with the Bible, in particular the book of Deuteronomy and other parts that deal with Israel's conquest of Canaan, the land which God promised to the people of Israel, will help to understand today's battle.

Israel is fighting to regain the land that is rightfully theirs and the "Palestians" are the occupiers. The world does not see it that way and tries to get Israel to compromise. There is no compromise possible between Israel and their enemies. Though Moyers' assertion of them being "genetically encoded" may be offensive, they are people with a goal of eventually possessing what is rightfully theirs, and I, for one, support them in trying to achieve their goal.

Genetics is clearly one of many things that Bill Moyers doesn't understand.

Scratch a liberal find an antisemite.

so Bill's a 'creationist'......who would have guessed....and him a lllieberal and all....

This discussion reminds me of an "All in the Family" episode (now I'm showing my age) where Archie & Mike (aka Meathead) are having a discussion in Mike's bedroom. Mike is Archie's son-in-law living in Archie's house.

Mike questions Archie's bigotry, and Archie responds with something like: "But that was what my parents and grandparents told me." He goes on in an extended monologue to describe how his parents fed him, clothed him, nurtured him etc. And then says "Why would they lie to me?" Mike pauses, and actually thinks about what Archie is saying. This is extraordinary because Mike rarely listens to his father-in-law.

Anyhow, we are all a product of our environment. And to me, I think the environment plays a much larger role in who we are than any genetics.

Pause for a second and think about where you got your beliefs. Where are they rooted? Who helped you form them?

While I know not what they think, I believe Palestinians and Israelites have been told by the generations before them that the other is a dangerous enemy. And many, I believe, have informed them that the other must be eliminated. This must stop to achieve real peace.

Now there's proof. Anti-Israel = Anti-Semitism, according to Yale study.

"Europe Reimports Jew Hatred"

(Wall Street Journal)

This brings a unique challenge to the difficult integration of Muslims in Europe. When it comes to issues like Shariah law and terrorism, one can expect a true "clash of civilizations." There is no Western tradition that would justify "honor killings." Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, is not alien to Europe's culture -- to the contrary, the Continent once excelled at it and many still share the feeling.

A Pew study from September shows 25% of Germans and 20% of French are still affected by this virus. In Spain, 46% have unfavorable views of Jews. Is there really no connection between this statistic and the fact that the Spanish media and government are among Europe's most hostile toward the Jewish state? Is it just a coincidence that Europe's largest anti-Israel demonstration took place Sunday in Spain, with more than 100,000 protesters?

A 2006 study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution based on the survey in 10 European countries suggests otherwise. Yale University's Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small found "that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment observed."

There's no such thing as a 'genetically coded agenda of violence' in a collective, i.e., a group.

Are there collective ideologies that promote violence against other peoples? Yes, of course, and we've seen that in just about all tribal societies since our species emerged, as the different tribes defined their 'home territories' and proceeded to defend their occupation of these lands. They would define the Other, the Enemy as tribes living close by who might, if their population increased, try to move into the territory of the first tribe.

All peoples and societies, including our own, have to define and defend a land base.

However, I disagree with Herman; there is no such thing as a land base that 'rightfully' belongs to any people - ethnic or religious group. That's because a land base is a political decision. It's not genetic; it's not 'essential'; it's not given by god. Land and sovereignty over land is a man-made and therefore political decision and there's no such thing as a 'rightful' ownership. Once sovereignty is established and accepted, politically, by others - then and then only can one say that one has a legitimate (politically legal) claim to the land.

Just like his pals in the Jihad, Moyers has contempt for anything that is not him. He

is one of the most useful of idiots that Islam has going for it. Naive doesn't begin to describe his state of mind. I guess the isolation in the ivory tower of the public television trough has separated him from reality for so long that he thinks the Jews are the bad guys.

Too bad he won't be around to enjoy life under Sharia.

Moyers is an a**hole. And that's genetic.

"Somebody said to me the other day that Americans don't behead, but we do drop smart bombs that do it for us." Bill Moyers, November 12, 2005 on PBS Now

That Moyers has been an entrenched entity at PBS for decades tells you something about PBS. This isn't his first foray into vicious and unfounded public statements. He and Jimmy Carter are both useless pontificating anti-Semitic weasels that sorely need to have their liberal icon status ended.

American Jews need to get their heads out of the sand. Liberals aren't your friends. They exploit your inherent generosity and tolerance.

The beginnings of the conflict biblically go back further than Moses. God's covenant was with Abraham's son, Isaac, the son of promise and the patriarch of the Jews. Abrahams other son, Ishmael, the son of the bondservant, Hagar, was shut out of the covenant that God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God did promise that Ishmael would have twelve sons (Princes) who would become a great nation or presumably 12 nations.
Nothing has really changed since the angel prophesied of Ishmael (the father of the Arabs) several thousand years ago.
"And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren." Gen 16:11-12

Just as telling was this exchange between Abraham and God:
"And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. Gen 17:18-22

A fruitful wildman multiplying exceedingly whose hand will be against every man and every mans hand against him dwelling in the midst of his brothers.... sounds like an accurate description of the modern day Middle East to me!

“You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place.”

There aren't very many ways to interpret that. If there are, feel free to correct me and explain how. Is this quote attributable to Moses or is it hot air? If it is, why is it deemed anti-semitic? Am I missing something.

As for the "inexcusably vicious reading" bit, this text is what it is and says what it says. Period. How many ways can you read it? What next - a muslim claiming Christians are providing vicious readings of the koran? It doesn't add up.

American Thinker: Who said it? Bill Moyers or David Duke?

Wherein AT administers a cute little quizz comprising 15 quotes and asks us to pick which ones are Moyers and which are David Duke, answers provided at the end.

Of course, Judaism and Islam are both tribal-based philosophies.

This is nothing new.

ET said: I disagree with Herman; there is no such thing as a land base that 'rightfully' belongs to any people - ethnic or religious group. That's because a land base is a political decision. It's not genetic; it's not 'essential'; it's not given by god. Land and sovereignty over land is a man-made and therefore political decision and there's no such thing as a 'rightful' ownership. Once sovereignty is established and accepted, politically, by others - then and then only can one say that one has a legitimate (politically legal) claim to the land.

I'd like to hear your opinion on a couple of examples.

The Inuit have adapted to an environment that no other genetic group could survive. They have an extra reserve of body fats, a digestive tract that can handle a high fat diet, and a social structure that keeps them sane during long periods of boredom.

The Australian Aborigine has a genetic structure like no other human population. They can survive terrible draught, extreme heat, and periods of desert cold. No other race could survive without high tech equipment.

The Bedouins have evolved into a specific gene pool that allows them to survive with less water than any other.

Sub-Saharan Africans have more pigment in their skin to protect them from direct sunlight. This didn't happen overnight.

Scandinavians have very fair skin, to allow more vitamin D absorption during the cold season.

Are these people not entitled to essential land bases? Of course, America never adhered to these rules, because we've gone high tech. Any fool can live in the desert with a drilled well, and air conditioning. The problem is, once we run out of cheap energy, some of the old rules will apply again.

The problem is in the heart, and it goes back further, to Cain and Abel.
And it is not difficult to see the historical significance of the Isaac and Ishmael in this present conflict. It is not isolated to the Jews being 'the problem'.
However, the solution to the problem is a change of heart. Humans are capable of that decision.
It's a choice to continue the hatred and rage. What is inescusable is the rage against the Jews without any basis, only that they are Jews.

dp - no, no-one is entitled to any essential land base; that includes none of the particular genetic adaptations to which you refer. These, by the way, are not separate races; we are all one species; these are specific localized adaptations.

After all, are you seriously going to claim that because the Inuit had, and I repeat, had, and could handle, a high fat diet, that this means that they both can lay claim to the Arctic and MUST live in the Arctic? Same with all your other groups.

What you are ignoring by focusing only on genetic adaptations to the environment is that our species, because of his brain, enables social/cultural adaptations which far outstrip the genetic adaptive powers. So yes, we can develop the technology to live in the desert. And Inuit can live in California if they so choose and eat a fat-free diet; and Scandinavians can put on sun screen in the Sahara or move to the Arctic and take Vitamin D.

As for running out of cheap energy, I doubt that; we'll switch to other energy forms; something our brain enables us to do.

“You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place.”

If you actually read the Bible you will see that part of the story is the battle against paganism. When the children of Israel finally reach the Promised Land, God gives this command to remove the idol worshippers. The Canaanites sacrificed their children to Molech - they practiced human sacrifice (I think it was at Megiddo/Armaggedon). God tells the children of Israel that He is giving them the land because the previous inhabitants were idol worshipping child sacrificers.

The God of the Bible does not require or demand human sacrifice.

ET - I agree with you about land bases being politically arbitrary in the big picture of humanity. Archaeologist seem to always find someone there before you. And, dp, human adaptation to an environment doesn't diminish entirely their ability to live outside of it. Staying in your space might not be in your best interests either. Native Americans negotiated for diminished land bases as opposed to assimilation into the larger culture which many could argue today wasn't in their best interest.

Face it, the Palestinians need to suck it up and make a realistic accommodation to reality. The Arabs declared all out war first back in '48 and three times from all sides after that. It's pretty basic, they lost to a superior tribe in the area. They have rejected a two-state solution for decades in the delusion that the Israelis will be driven into the sea and all of their land base will be restored to them.

Of course western liberals stoke this nihilistic Palestinian catastrophe with their encouragements, not that in a past time of more practical reasoned thinking there wasn't some sympathetic gadfly from NYC telling Geronimo that he would get NM and Arizona back.

Bill Moyer is proof that cousins should not marry.

penny:
One of my key planks toward the solution of the I-A conflict is the winding down of UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency) or at the very least giving it transparency.

Fascinating statistic in a piece I encountered recently: 60% of homocide bomber Jew-killers went to UN schools in the West Bank, whereas overall, only 25% of Arabs there attended UN schools. If I've read this correctly, this means a double+ probability of a UN school producing a mass-murderer of innocent Isralies. The UN is, or course, a prolific employer of terrorists.
The UN is jihad central and one of the key enablers of the continuation of this conflict that, were it not involving Jews, would have been resolved 50 years ago.

ET: For g_d sake, get off the "Israel didn't ENABLE a Arab State" meme. The Arabs themselves failed to enable a state, consistently since 1947. Yours is a hopelessly uber-liberal meme -- out of sync with your usual thinking -- the same kind of well-intended but wrong-headed thinking which absolves criminals of their behaviour because they had a bad family upbringing or because of their substance addictions.

Stop insulting the Arabs -- grant them moral agency!

How is it possible to maintain a nation's integrity, when so many people have bought into this global mosaic idea that ET is spouting?
Open borders, unhindered immigration, people trying to live where they don't belong. It will be the end of us.

Einstein:

"There are two things in the world I know to be infinite: the universe, and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the universe."

penny, I think that you are out of date with your claim that 'they' (Palestinians, Arab States) have rejected a two-state solution.

Jordan and Egypt both have; the other Arab states are more or less (except for Iran and Syria) outside of the conflict - and so did Arafat, as I've outlined before, on September 9, 1993.

Palestinian recognition of Israel

It's Israel that refuses to recognize, or enable, a Palestinian state. In both word and action. After all, if you are busily settling the land of this 'Other State', i.e., the West Bank, it shows rather clearly that you have no intention of giving up that land to the Other People.

I think the extremists, the fundamentalists on both sides have to be marginalized. In Israel the Orthodox/Conservative view is that the land, including the West Bank, 'by essential right', i.e., by the word of god, belongs to the Jews. This view is politically powerful in Israel. The fundamentalists of Islam feel the same, though not by 'the word of god' but by religious based tribal imperatives to reject other tribes.

But, even though Hamas is a 'tail' of the Islamic fascist movement- which has a different cause than the I-P situation, there are still enough everyday Palestinians on the ground for a wedge to be driven between the fundamentalists and the 'average man'.

I think that reducing the ratio of fundamentalist vs average man, by enabling the Palestinians to have a strong, robust economy directly linked to that of Israel, and enabling them to have a sovereign democratic state of their own - will deflate and disempower Islamic fundamentalism in the ME.

You cannot kill fundamentalism by assuming that IF you kill its current membership, the ideology will die. The act of violence actually energizes MORE members. It's like some science fiction movie where killing the one monster causes ten more to appear. You can only marginalize it to irrelevance, and you do this by strengthening the 'real people'.

The reality of the Palestinian people can't be ignored; they aren't going to disappear, despite the wishes of many on both sides of the conflict that they would do so. The only reasonable solution is a two-state, but with the Palestinian one economically closely allied to the economy of Israel. Both democracies; both with a middle class. The two together, one Muslim, one Jewish, would pose a formidable obstacle to the Islamic fascism of the tribal Arab states.

ET,

In many cases you have useful things to say.

On this topic you don't. That's the charitable version.

If you think that Arafat did ANYTHING in good faith (except pillage the aid money sent by world leaders who think like you) you're retarded.

dp- there's no such thing as 'people living where they don't belong' because there's no such thing as 'people living where they belong'. We are all the one and the same species.

me no dhimmi- ah, here we go again. I certainly am not a member of the Save-a-Criminal Camp; I don't absolve anyone of their responsibility, and don't accept the socialist theme that 'criminals aren't responsible..it was their mother or their abusive stepfather or their whatever...People make their own choices.

That includes Israel. I don't absolve Israel of responsibility in this situation, for its refusal to acknowledge a Palestinian state, for its refusal to even accept Step 1 of the "Road Map' which was to STOP settling the West Bank. I don't absolve Israel for its differential treatment of the settlers vs Palestinians in the West Bank (no water for irrigation for Palestinians, no road travel, etc); and I don't absolve Israel for its stopping hydro, water, and the open border to the produce for the greenhouses in Gaza.

It takes, not merely work, but an intentionality to deal with this situation - and in my view, Israel's intention is to absorb the WB fully into its sovereign nation - and for there to be no Palestinian state. I haven't seen any indication of any other intention on Israel's part.

ET: These Arafat letters from 1993. Pre-PA, right? Are they not mere attempts to persuade Israel and Norway (Oslo "peace" process) to accept the father of global terrorism as a peace partner? It's a letter -- from 1993 designed to get him inserted into Israel as the official "spokesman" of the "legitimate" "rights" of the "Palestinian" "People".

Events, my dear woman, events! His behaviour belied what he wrote rendering these noble sentiments not worth the paper they were written on. Again: the PLO charter. NOT AMENDED. He did NOTHING to develop civil society and ordered up his death-cult slaves to kill 1000 Israeli civilians after shutting down the "peace process".

You've often acknowledged Arafat's corruption, presumably late in the game. But corruption schmorruption, big deal. Most pols are. His sin was way way beyond corruption. He was a unrepentant terrorist whose objective was always the destructin of Israel. And again: remember the origin of the PLO. It was KGB creation, designed to destroy the west. Nothing whatever to do with this bogus "Palestinian state".

the jews gave gaza back to the arabs. look at what they got for their effort.

me no dhimmi - you have no proof that I only acknowledged Arafat's corruption 'Presumably late in the game' - and there's no need to make such an assumption about me. I acknowledged his corruption early in the game. OK? He had, right from the start, no intention of enabling a Palestinian democracy because he knew that would be the end of his power.

I also disagree that Arafat's corruption can be sloughed off by stating that his was equal to 'most politicians'. It wasn't and I disagree that most politicians are corrupt. Arafat was in a remarkable position in that he could enrich himself without accountability to anyone; that he could control his council by fiefdom tactics..and so on. He was as corrupt as Saddam Hussein.

A Palestinian state is no more bogus than the idea of a USA or Canada. Both were creations of human political agency and the same for a Palestinian state.

Sorry, but I find David Meir-Levi's conspiracy outline of the PLO as a KGB initiative extremely thin on facts and logical analysis but extremely heavy on asserted opinion. His focus on 'it's a communist plot' ignores the reality of post WWII dysfunctional tribalism in the ME as a causal force of Islamic fascism.

However, no matter what we thought of Arafat, he was the 'legitimate' leader of the PLO and therefore, his signature had to be on that document. The document itself, accepting the right of the state of Israel to exist, was accepted by the PNC (Palestinian National Council) in April 24, 1996 by a strong majority vote.

My focus is on Israel, on the average Palestinian and on Islamic fascism. I'm not going to repeat what I said above, but my suggestion is that IF Israel wants to ensure its security, THEN, dealing with Palestinians AND Islamic fascism (two different realities) has to be as complex as the realities.

Yes, you militarily fight against fascism, but, you must also reduce its membership, not by military means which will only set its membership and goals back for a few months; you must also reduce its attractiveness to new members. You do that by reducing the ratio of radicals to non-radicals - and you get this reduction by empowering the non-radicals. By enabling them to have their own state and a robust economy. Israel has focused only one 'Agenda One' of this complex strategy - the military one. It rejects 'Agenda Two' - the political and economic one. WHY?

Because it wants the West Bank for itself?

warwick - Sorry, but without facts, opinions are like dangling participles...

ET: Thanks. Good to know you GOT Arafat from the get go. Clinton was obviously not as smart as you and me. But again the "acceptance of the state of Israel" in 1996 means nothing. Neither Arafat nor Abbas did anything to engender civil society in the "occupied territories". Nothing!

LOOK, if I was sincere about a "Palestinian" state, having lost a war, and having beeen occpuied by the enemy, I'd set about proving -- and yes, ET, they lost the land in war, it's their job to prove peaceful intent -- that I was sincere. I'd reform the educational system root and branch and also the PA controlled media to remove all that Jew-hatred, all those ugly vile blood libels. I would destroy the terrorist infrastructure, I'd cease and desist brainwashing young people to become glorious martyrs (while Arafat's wife and kids are in Paris, btw) for the purpose of killing 1000 innocent Israli civilians on the way toward establishing a Palestinian state overlaying Israel -- in all of western Palestine.

Sorry, the 1993 letter means nothing. The 1996 adoption in its "parliament" means nothing. All bull**it. Taqiya.

The PLO should NEVER EVER have been co-opted as the spokesman for the the "Palestinians". This is the true nakbar (sp?).

NO, ET: it was the Arabs' job to ENABLE a state. Not Israel's. And they won't get one until Fatah AND Hamas, and the other 3 terrorist groups are destroyed. But the world doesn't understand this, so it'll the more of the same and/or the final destruction of Israel. And then us. First comes Saturday, then Sunday!

Herman I agree with you.

ET I won't debate you because I reckon you have more book learnin' than me but I believe you are wrong about Israel's right to that piece of the world. You are an Atheist right? You even write the word God with a small g. That's okay I guess but unless you believe the Bible as the word of God, you will never get it. No matter how much book learning you possess. God has things to say about that as well, but I won't go there.

I write this with respect and no ill feeling toward you. Just sayin'.

This is another fellow who has fallen off his rocking chair like Margolis. Both have become appologists for Islamic violence married to Socialism.

Storm: Of course, you don't need to be a biblical literalist to side with Israel.

Whoever had "41" in the "How many fake accusations of racism will hardcore left wing antiracism activist Kate McMillan make within 3 weeks of Israel's latest invasion" pool, please claim your prize.

(Oh come on, don't be so grumpy, it was funny, learn to take a joke...)

me no dhimmi - you can't enable a state, which is not merely a geographic territory but also an economic activity, unless:

Your neighbours acknowledge your sovereignty over that territory. Since Israel is settling the West Bank, then please tell me how that enables Palestinians to have a state! And since these territories are occupied by Israel, then, how can any Palestinian or any other country, Arab or otherwise, set up an economy? Especially since the water, the roads, the hydro, is all controlled by Israel?

You may dismiss the 1993 letter, and the 1996 vote that accepts Israel, but that doesn't deny their existence. Your attempt to deny their existence is an attempt to define the narrative that you have in your mind about Israel/Palestine. The narrative is more valid to you than facts! The fact that the PLO should never have been accepted is not relevant; I agree with you, esp. since it moved from thinking it was a representative to being a guerilla movt and then corrupt.. but it was accepted by the international community.

But settling the West Bank shows an intention to own that land...and what do you expect a Palestinian to do when his farm is taken and bulldozed for a road, open only to settler travel? What do you expect him to do when his olive trees are destroyed by settlers?

You seem to be under the delusion that no Israeli has any hostility towards Arabs/Palestinians. I suggest you read a bit of the Halakhah (the Rule Book, so to speak, the ancient texts comparable to the Islamic Hadiths, which set out the social rules of behaviour)...and read a bit on settler activity. Not only is it psychologically naive to think that one set of human beings is somehow 'abnormally all good' while the other set is somehow 'abnormally all bad' - but, it isn't true.

The fact that the Palestinians have really no-one to represent them (Fatah and Hamas being either corrupt and/or fascist) puts the burden even more on Israel to DO Something. And, I repeat, if it would acknowledge a Palestinian state, which it has never done, and actually work with the 'average Palestinian' to enable one, and above all, do this by working with them to link their economy to that of Israel - my point is that this would create an enormous wedge between the radicals and non-radicals - and would actually empower Israel in that area, against the fascists.

There is nothing like the power of the economy to strengthen a population towards peace.

"...Once sovereignty is established and accepted, politically, by others - then and then only can one say that one has a legitimate (politically legal) claim to the land..."

ET,

Didn't "others" ( the United Nations is definitely "others" ) establish and politically accept Israel's sovereignty in 1948?

“You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place.”
AS was pointed out in other comments,the passage refers to things and places. It does not tell the Israelites to slaughter the people,but remove everything about the religion practiced by them.

"There is nothing like the power of the economy to strengthen a population towards peace."

ET, a normal economy is never going to happen in the hell hole of the Palestinian's failed state and culture. The best thing that could happen to Palestinians is a complete and humiliating defeat like Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII when there were no options left but to clean the slate or completely perish. But, in today's liberal leaning world of ridiculous moral equivalence, misplaced naivety, where no one is punished for their bad ideas and behavior that's not likely to happen.

"The fact that the Palestinians have really no-one to represent them"

Not true, ET, they willingly chose Hamas at the polls. It's like absolving Russians who have allowed Putin to reverse any semblance of a civil society over the years so they could acquire more stuff vs settle major issues in their flawed post-Communist existence. The petro-dollars are gone now and they are bag holders back to square one. People need to take responsibilty for their willfull ignorance and hubris.

Eventually it even hit the IRA homicidal Neanderthals that they weren't getting Ulster back. The population in the Irish Republic never bought into their mayhem which left them positioned to ascend economically when the opportunity came. Until the Palestinians act like normal civil people they will live like they do now.

ET: Sure, the 1993 letters are a fact; the 1996 adoption in the "parliament" is a fact. But the sincerity of same is not a fact as proven by actual action including the two intifadas. A written contract is a fact too, tho as you know it may be broken if one of the parties fail to deliver on its promises.

The PA did nothing to demonstrate their true interest in forming a state existing in peace and harmony with Israel. Did nothing to develop civil society -- a key precursor to statehood.
It's odd, we have some rare agreement in recognizing what Arafat was. As you point out (and as I do) he was never interested in the kind of state we're both thinking about. But despite acknowledging this, you still argue that Israel is guilty of not enabling the state, which Arafat himself was not seeking.

And again: Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was occupied in a defensive war against multiple Arab state aggression in 1967. The Arabs refused to negotiate at all (the Three No's from that Khartuom (sp?) conference) putting the land in limbo, albeit LEGALLY occupied by Israel.

Some observers think that the Arab intent was simply to win on demographis over time -- to just let the conflict simmer; that the Jewish settlement might create some kind of urgency on the Arab side to actually make peace.

Facing a clear existential threat to your existence you don't give up something you've taken by well-recognized rules of warfare without a quid pro quo from the enemy. Israel never got that. Again, the PA kept NONE of its promises vis a vis the Road Map.

BTW, I'm embarrassed to admit that I was strongly in favour of Sharon's decision to unilaterally vacate the Gaza strip and violently uproot 8000 Jews living there legally. I thought: 'this will be a terrific good will gesture; the Arabs will get a chance to show the world they can at least start building a state and any future aggression from that corner will be prove to the world the reality of Arab aggression'. NOT.

Dave in Mississauga at January 16, 2009 11:38 AM....

This is true and in no way excuses Moyers for this piece of trash.

Imagine if a CHRC lurker had found (or planted) a piece like that on a conservative blog!

That'd be front page news and a kangaroo court in progress.....

ET
where do you get this boilerplate stuff?
"what do you expect a Palestinian to do when his farm is taken and bulldozed for a road, open only to settler travel? What do you expect him to do when his olive trees are destroyed by settlers?
You seem to be under the delusion that no Israeli has any hostility towards Arabs/Palestinians. I suggest you read a bit of the Halakhah (the Rule Book, so to speak, the ancient texts comparable to the Islamic Hadiths, which set out the social rules of behaviour)...and read a bit on settler activity."

I don't think anyone has suggested that there are no Israelis with any hostility towards Arabs/Muslims. They'd be crazy or superhuman not to have any hostility. But how much is acted upon? Sure there are some hotheaded "settlers" - so what? How many times have they gone off? I know I know, Baruch Goldstein.

And what on earth are you talking about when you bring up halaka? Have you and Bill Moyers been reading ""Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud"? Get a grip.

By-pass roads were built AROUND Arab areas because too many Jews were being slaughtered by Arabs on roads that went THROUGH Arab areas! They were not built to discriminate against Arabs. They were simply built to save Jewish lives.

You seem to have some problem with Jews "settling" in the West Bank. There are over 1 million Arabs living in Israel. Arabic is an official language of Israel. Observant Jews live everywhere on the planet, why could they not live in the West Bank? And they lived there during the 1800 years when Jews were not soveign in Judea? (they lived there even though they believe that God gave the Holy Land to Jews).

"Genetics is clearly one of many things that Bill Moyers doesn't understand." Maybe I am mistaken, but I suspect Moyers was speaking metaphorically.

Moyers only got it half right

There Was a genetic problem which was why
the Jews were instructed to COMPLETELY Wipe out CERTAIN
Tribes/Groups. Think Nephalim / "Sons of Anak"
(IE non-human Material in the gene pool)

What is interesting is to take a set of maps and look up the
Places that they FAILED to do so
and what state said Geographical locations are in now (contentious/ not in present day Israel)

Now that I've Kooked some of you out
(creeped didn't quite seem the right word)
I'm going to leave you to your studies

"And what on earth are you talking about when you bring up halaka? Have you and Bill Moyers been reading ""Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud"? Get a grip."

All this is news to me. Can someone please clarify what this Halaka business is, and what kind of attitude Jews are advised to take against non-Jews in the Talmud?

Yes ET, perhaps you could explain Halacha to stumped.

In an attempt at moral relativism, Halacha (basically Jewish Law) is equated with Islamic law. There are piles and piles of quotes accumulated, some made up, some taken out of context, which attempt to show that Jews hate/are antagonistic/think they are superior to Gentiles. These compilations are a kin to Protocols of the Elders of Zion - hogwash, balderdash.

If you want to know about halacha, go to chabad.org or aish.com.

I am not sure what ET's angle is here. Something like well Muslims think Jews are dogs and pigs, but look at halacha, it says all these negative things about non-Jews. Boilerplate nonsense.

This story and the comments on here are nothing but a blinding example of disingenuous, malicious and willful misreadings. I wonder how many of you went back to hear Moyers or were you simply content with Kate leading you all by the nose?

Interesting that every "transcript" I've seen posted mysteriously stops at "So God-soaked violence became genetically coded." And of course, the hyenas around have a new bone. Moyers must be saying the Jews are genetically encoded for violence. Except that when you go back to the original statement (it's at about the 5:12 mark for those of you who would rather skip other sober and interesting thoughts on Gaza violence), Moyers' next words are: "A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth." It's clear with anyone of even middling intelligence that Moyers is not singling out Jews but in fact the biblical source of violence encoded in the human race. I'm thrilled at Conservatives' new found zeal to root out anti-Semitism (because we all know where traditionally anti-semitism has resided in this country), but I don't think it's too much to ask you to exercise a little of dignity and rigour in your readings and analysis. Moyers could have been more precise, you can question his theological acumen, but I think it's pretty clear that Moyers is not being anti-Semitic.

In fact, here's Moyers' response to similar charges made by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.
Dear Mr. Foxman:

You made several errors in your letter to me of January 13 and I am writing to correct them.

First, to call someone a racist for lamenting the slaughter of civilians by the Israeli military offensive in Gaza is a slur unworthy of the tragedy unfolding there. Your resort to such a tactic is reprehensible.

Earlier this week it was widely reported that the International Red Cross “was so outraged it broke its usual silence over an attack in which the Israeli army herded a Palestinian family into a building and then shelled it, killing 30 people and leaving the surviving children clinging to the bodies of their dead mothers. The army prevented rescuers from reaching the survivors for four days.”

When American troops committed a similar atrocity in Vietnam, it was called My Lai and Lt. Calley went to prison for it. As the publisher of a large newspaper at the time, I instructed our editorial staff to cover the atrocity fully because Americans should know what our military was doing in our name and with our funding. To say “my country right or wrong” is like saying “my mother drunk or sober.” Patriots owe their country more than that, whether their government and their taxes are supporting atrocities in Vietnam, Iraq, or, in this case, Gaza.

Contrary to your claim, I made no reference whatsoever to “moral equivalency” between Hamas and Israel. That is an old canard often resorted to by propagandists trying to divert attention from facts on the ground, and, it, too, is unworthy of the slaughter in Gaza. Contrary to imputing “moral equivalency” between Hamas and Israel, I said that “Hamas would like to see every Jew in Israel dead.” I said that “a radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth.” And I described the new spate of anti-Semitism across the continent of Europe. I am curious as to why you ignored remarks which clearly counter the notion of “moral equivalency.”

And although I specifically referred to “the rockets from Hamas” falling on Israel and said that “every nation has the right to defend itself, and Israel is no exception,” you nonetheless accuse me of “ignorance of the terrorist threat against Israel.” Once again, you are quite selective in your reading of my essay.

Your claim that “the checkpoints, the security fence and the Gaza operation” [I used the more accurate “onslaught”] are not humiliating of the Palestinians is lamentable. I did not claim that these were, as you write, “tactics of humiliation rather [emphasis mine] than counter-terrorism,” but perhaps it is overly simplistic to think they are one and not the other, when they are both. Also lamentable is your description of my “promotion” of the Norwegian doctor in Gaza when in fact I was simply quoting what he told CBS News: “It’s like Dante’s Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage.” The whole world has been able to see for itself what he was talking about, and as one major news organization after another has been reporting, is reeling from the sight.

And, to your claim that I was “declaring Jews are ‘genetically coded’ for violence,” you are mistaken. My comment – obviously not sufficiently precise – was not directed at a specific people but to the fact that the human race has violence in its DNA, as the biblical stories so strongly affirm. I also had in mind the relationship between all the descendents of Abraham who love the same biblical land and come to such grief over it.

From my days in President Johnson’s White House forward, I have defended Israel’s right to defend itself, and still do. But sometimes an honest critic is a government’s best friend, and I am appalled by Israel’s devastation of innocent civilians in this battle, all the more so because, as I said in my column, it is exactly what Hamas wanted to happen. To be so indifferent to that suffering is, sadly, to be as blind in Gaza as Samson.

Sincerely,

Bill Moyers

For heaven's sake, ex-liberal, you are deliberately obfuscating the issue. I wonder why?

I am NOT talking about Jews living in the West Bank, within a territory defined as under Palestinian sovereignty! That is, they would be Palestinian citizens. You know perfectly well that I am talking about Israeli settlers settling in those areas to PREVENT that area becoming a Palestinian state. And they have no intention of being defined as Jews within a Palestinian state.
Don't try to divert the issue to something that is not the question.

And the Halakhah texts are the old rabbinical rules of societal behaviour for Jews, developed in the early tribal days. Collated by various individuals such as Maimonides (11th c) and among the Orthodox, accepted a inviolate, while Conservatives accept them as open to evolution and Reform Jews consider them as open to individual acceptance/interpretation.

As laws, they define very specifically how to live both within the society 'as Jews' and how to treat and interact with non-members of the tribe, and specific mention is made of arabs. This set of rules is similar to the Islamic Hadiths, which are also tribal rules outlining how to live within the Islamic tribe and how to deal with non-members. The point is, both are tribal, both are exclusionary of others, both reject merging with others.
The rules are vast, pertain to every aspect of life, even down to 'handling wine handled by a Muslim handled by a Christian'...to whether you can medically assist a non-member of the tribe

The rules specifically state that a Jew cannot give up the land 'given by god'; that he cannot sell land or property to a non-Jew; that a non-Jew's word cannot be accepted because 'they all lie'. If you accept these rulings as inviolate, as the Orthodox do, they affect the political agenda in the Israeli legislature.

The hostility of some Jews to Palestinians is not simply a 'reaction to Palestinian violence' but is specific to their own orthodox beliefs that the entire land base is theirs 'by god's will' and that Others (specifically arabs) have no right to the land. The exclusionary nature of these laws (both among Jews and Muslims) is obvious; no mixing of the two, and the Other is viewed as a 'lesser being'.

Please don't divert the issue. Israel is not blameless in this situation. It is far more complex than you are willing to admit, with your binary black and white scenario.

Thank you, ET and ex-liberal for explaining this Halakha text as well as the attitude towards non-co-religionists. I admit scant knowledge of Jewish texts.

ex-liberal,

"There are piles and piles of quotes accumulated, some made up, some taken out of context, which attempt to show that Jews hate/are antagonistic/think they are superior to Gentiles."

I have been on this board long enough to read numerous quotes of a similar nature attributed to Islam. Without playing moral equivalency games, I would like to know why we should not take the Halakha at face value the same way we do the texts of any other religion. I have seen claims and counter-claims made about both Christianity and Islam on this board, but never a Jewish text. Why is this the case? I had never even heard of the Halakha, but I am dead certain I can find similar quotes about Islam on one of the threads posted today. Now, now, I am not insinuating that Islam is equal to Judaism, but if religious texts can be the root of all evil in one religion, then don't all warrant some scrutiny, instead of being dismissed as "out of context" quotes.

I mean, there really is only one way to interpret most of these quotes (like the one in this post).

On a somewhat related note, I don't think its surprising the Jews think they are superior to Gentiles. All believers believe they are superior to non-believers. Thats hardly shocking.

MOYERS -- BLOOD LIBEL IN THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE.
First, to call someone a racist for lamenting the slaughter of civilians by the Israeli military offensive in Gaza is a slur unworthy of the tragedy unfolding there.

In the very first sentence -- "correcting" the record -- he engages in the classic jew-hating blood libel. The very first sentence! The slaughter of innocents?. Any non-jew-hating observer can see that Israel is fighting a defensive war after receiving about 7,000 rockets from Hamas targeted at innocent Israeli civilians; takes every possible measure to AVOID civilian casualties including phoning ahead, dropping leaflets, etc. even taking on higher casualties itself in the process.

Hamas deliberately slaughters innocent Israeli citizens and even more Pal-Arab civilians by placing themselves in their midst, by hiding out in hospitals, by firing missiles from schools, etc etc etc. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that a central tenet of Hamas war-making is the deliberate tactic of causing the inevitable death of civilians for propaganda purposes, to be swallowed whole by gullibe westerners, and vicious anti-semites like Moyers.

Anti-zionism = anti-semitism.
Applying a standard to Israel applicable to no other country on the planet is the acid test for anti-semitism.

Me No Dhimmi,

"Earlier this week it was widely reported that the International Red Cross “was so outraged it broke its usual silence over an attack in which the Israeli army herded a Palestinian family into a building and then shelled it, killing 30 people and leaving the surviving children clinging to the bodies of their dead mothers. The army prevented rescuers from reaching the survivors for four days.”

If that did, in fact, happen, then Moyers is correct in stating that innocents are being slaughtered.

The outrage is not so much at the reason behind Israel's action - it is perfectly entitled to bomb the living daylights out of Hamas. The outrage is directed at civilian deaths, not at legitimate attacks on Hamas.

The problem with this particular round of attacks is that there is a growing perception that the civilian death toll doesn't matter. Is this anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic? Hardly. The Americans/British/Canadians/Japanese would get the same amount of criticism under these circumstances. Would you label me anti-Christian or anti-Shinto then?

The bit that is worrying everyone is that the Palestinian life is somehow considered less valuable than any other human life. The Bible tells us that all humans are equal, regardless of their religion. Their equality in the afterlife may be in question, but their right to life on Earth is unquestionable, nor is the value of one human being's life less than that of the other.

Am I anti-Semitic for saying that all humans are equal regardless of their race/religion?