Great article. As a Jew, I know which side I'm on!

... the happy fact that anti-Semitism is completely extinct in our society's respectable mainstream...

About 5 years ago, Lowell Green broached the topic on his Ottawa talk show. The lines opened up and the vile hate calls poured in. Lowell was stunned but kept it going and even replayed the tape the next day. The callers were by no means all immigrants. It opened my eyes to the latency of this old hatred and we should be aware of it.

Kay is nonetheless correct on his main point.

and free speech includes mocking any religion I care to make fun of . . . even if the Catholics don't like it.

Excellent analysis by Kay.

A problem with identifying 'anti-semitism' as bias against either the Jewish religion or people who follow that religion, is that Israel and in particular the N. American Jewish community has merged the definition with 'opposition to the political policies of Israel'.

This means that IF you dissent from the political policies of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. This effectively makes it almost impossible to critique Israel because your criticism is immediately rejected as psychologically perverted.

But Israel is a political entity and as such, must be open to analysis and criticism of its political actions. If there is an increase in anti-semitism in Europe and elsewhere, my view is that this is due to the deliberate merging, by Israel and the N.American Jewish community, of 'Jewish religion' with 'Israel'.

This goes further. By defining 'Jewishness' as a state of perpetual victimhood, this also sets up Israel as in a state of perpetual victimhood. This obscures what I consider valid criticism of Israel's actions in the occupied territories. And, it actually inhibits and prevents any emergence of a peace, of a Palestinian state (for they are always the bad guys, and Israel is always the victim).

For any group, religious or ideological, to control what others think of that group's beliefs and behaviour - is not merely an affront to freedom of speech, but its authoritarian censorship sets up the group as ideologically and behaviourally closed. They can't interact with others; they can't change; they are frozen.

This is valid whether the group attempting to control what others think are: homosexuals/lesbians, Muslims, Jews, etc.

Remember, the HRAct Section 13.1 is focused around Group Identity - and only specific groups. The Commission is utterly indifferent if someone's speech 'offends you' if you are a member of a group not defined by the Commission as 'discriminated against'. So, if you are white and Christian, an article, no matter how foul, against both attributes, will be ignored by the HRC. If you are brownskinned and Muslim or Jewish, they'll grab it with glee. This violates our legal rights of being equal before the law, doesn't it?

So, what Ezra is doing is vitally important. The HRAct Section 13.1 has to go. And so does multiculturalism, which is intimately linked to this Section.

ET: good to see we can agree on something.

ET, multiculturalism isn't the mainstay of our Canadian society because it is right, but because it is a conduit to power.

If we are talking about true multiculturalism, and equality before law, and rights, then Quebec's Bill 101 would not exist. But Quebec is given a pass. Because of its status in Confederation. Which is unbalanced.

This unbalance has been exploited magnificently by the LPC. A pass to Quebec, for Quebec is the ticket to majority government. Multiculturalism to the stack the population outside of Quebec with vote machines. And One Ring of AntiAmerican Dogma to Bind Them All.

I don't buy the LPC multiculturalism hogwash for one second. I might buy it the day I see Bill 101 set aside.

excellent article by Mr. Kay. Amongst the Jews that I know and in my family, it divides along the lines of recognizing the existential threat of militant Islam and thinking that the "threat" is just created by war-mongering right-wingers. Then there are many Jews who keep quiet to not "draw attention".

ET, I think that you have it completely backwards. It is the enemies of Israel (and civilization) who have merged Jews world wide with Israel. They often talk of "killing Jews wherever they are". They do not distinguish between liberal and conservative Jews or those that do not think Israel should exist and those who identify as Zionists.

Criticism of Israel is one thing and you will find many Jews/Israelis that criticize their government - but telling lies about the Jewish people or Israel ("Jews stole the land of the ancient Palestinians") is, in my books, pure anti-Jewism.

Let the record show that ET dragged Israel into this conversation

ET can you demonstrate your point about Israel and N.A. Jews with any actual data? Is the occurrence any worse than Nelson Mandela suggesting Bush and Blair were racists for going into Iraq? And just try any condemnation of anything Islamic and watch the Islamophobia claims, maybe with lawsuits.

What I see mostly nowadays, is people like you trying to make this an issue and dying to be called an antisemite to make your silly point.

ET:
Excellent comment. As someone who supports Israel unconditionally, I indeed say that grudgingly.

I am not Jewish myself, but I have always felt a deep identification with the Jewish people. I see the Jewish-Palestinian struggle as a zero-sum game in which someone must lose, and I do not want it to be the Jews. When your own survival is at stake, you fight with every technique at your disposal, and sometimes it isn't pretty. The Jews anguish about this much more than the Palestinians, who seem untroubled by brutality.

I'll stand by my points. The merging of Israel, as a political entity and 'Jewishness' as a religious identity, means that criticism of the one becomes defined as anti-semitism.

I'm hardly going to list all the evidence; just google 'anti-semitism and israel' and you'll see a plethora of argument on the topic.

greenmamba, I think it is correct to bring Israel into the discussion because the theme is anti-semitism. Your analogies are invalid. Mandela's argument against Bush is part of the old Said's Orientalism (western imperialist power) and as invalid as Said's.

Your Islamic example isn't explaining anything, for, just as Muslims are rejecting criticism (both external and internal) and accuse such criticism as 'phobia' and threaten lawsuits, so too the CJC and B'nai Brith do the same, accusing others of anti-semitism and filing lawsuits.

ex-liberal. I disagree; I don't think I 'have it backwards'. The enemies of Israel, by which I presume you mean the local Arab States, isn't the focus of all anti-semitism. Furthermore, I don't think it is valid to bond 'Israel' with 'civilization'. You are suggesting, it seems, that to critique Israel is to critique civilization. That seems a bit far-fetched.

Consider a 2003 opinion poll conducted by the European Commission asking which countries in the world posed the greatest threat to world peace. Israel was ranked by Europeans as the foremost threat; the Israeli media and Jewish organizations angrily dismissed the results as anti-Semitic.

google in: can we criticize israel without being labelled anti-semitic
You'll find quite a few articles.

ET you cite discussion on the subject, not fact. Truly it would be hard to prove because as I said (& you seem to have agreed), everyone does it. People are only criticised for calling antisemitism however.

The UN spends more time on Israel than anything else. Why? Given their mandate and the many far worse conflicts, it speaks of bias. Western media is hopelessly biased against Israel and the EU generally votes with the Arab League. Things are hugely distorted in the world. No wonder one gets the survey results one does in Europe. Pinning it on Jews crying antisemitism is ridiculous and your brain is better than that for crying out loud.

"Consider a 2003 opinion poll conducted by the European Commission asking which countries in the world posed the greatest threat to world peace. Israel was ranked by Europeans as the foremost threat"

Thereby confirming that much of what poses as "criticism of Israel" is just anti-semitism by proxy.

I would add that essentially the dividing line between the Jewish people on this issue is much the same as for everyone else. Those who are ignorant of Jewish values (Torah values) and reject them, gravitate to the secular left (communism, socialism, etc.). Those who have a good understanding of Jewish values and teachings understand what the real issues are and stand for them with conviction.

ET as usual obsessed with Israel. The topic has nothing to do with Israel and your never ending distortion of history and facts concerning Israel is tiring to say the least.

No, kate, I don't think that criticism of Israel is anti-semitism by proxy, because you are thereby assuming that the basic and first cause of criticism of Israel - has NOTHING to do with Israel as a political entity, and is completely due to its religious base - and to the psyche of the person who is criticizing.

I don't think that you can remove a political entity, ever, from evaluation, which includes both accolades and criticism. Therefore, criticism of Israel has to be accepted and evaluated for its political validity, and not rejected as due merely to 'anti-semitism'.

No, alain, I'm not obsessed with Israel; you are, with these words, trying to denigrate my critique of Israel as merely my own neurosis. I don't think it's quite that easy to dismiss a criticism of Israeli political actions by calling them due only to psychological causes(ie, anti-semitic).

Agreed.

"foremost threat" is nauseatingly ignorant, given the fact that almost every Muslim state and terrorist organisation has been threatening to push Israel into the sea since it became a nation. When Hezbollah has declared open season, not just on Israel, but Jews everywhere. When Elmasry, here in Canada, publicly declares every Israeli over 18 is a legitimate target for murder (I'm sure he wanted to say every Jew).

Anti-Semitism is always adapting. 'Anti-Zionism' is the new word spin to cloak outright racism.

Furthermore, it's not just "the local Arab states." It's the Persians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Chechens, Malaysians, etc., etc., pretty much wherever there are Muslims there is anti-Semitic racism and anti-Christian bigotry.

But then it's an important tenet of their ideology. So important that Mohammad declared that the last hour would not come until Muslims had killed the Jews.

So ET, what are you saying? Israel IS the greatest threat to world peace?

As far as I can see, Israel just sits there and the Arabs shoot at it. My only criticism of Israel is they put up with too much crap from those guys.

Imagine if some two-bit Arab oil state drove a ship up to the twelve mile international limit and started lobbing missiles into Vancouver. Would we have a "restrained" response like Israel? I think not.

CAPITULATION:

ET: This means that IF you dissent from the political policies of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. This effectively makes it almost impossible to critique Israel because your criticism is immediately rejected as psychologically perverted.

I’ve re-read this and am forced to agree with ET. The case is proven by the total lack of criticism of Israel. It doesn’t exist, shut down, silenced by fear of being labelled with the dreaded ‘A’ word.

Silent the U.N., the Arab League, The Guardian, MPAC/UK, British intellectuals of all stripes, Ha’aretz, ISM, UNRWA, CUPE, EU, Juan Cole, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, rabble.ca, the NDP, bigcitylib, Noam, Louise Arbor, Ronnie Kasrils, John Dugard, Allister Sparks, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Jimmy Carter, Canadian Dimension, Malt & Wearsheimer, David Duke and SturmFrunt.

Sorry I doubted you ET.

Score for GreenMamba.

Which reminds me: didn't hezbollocks specifically go after Jews in South America some time back? I don't think they were Zionists...

Go after? They blew up a Jewish community centre in Argentina. The Argentines are still going after them in the world court for crimes against humanity.

ET,

Is Elmasry's remark criticism of Israel, or anti-Semitism? Afterall, Israel requires all citizens to undergo military training, if I'm not mistaken.

For those who wish to actually do something about Free Speech in Canada: http://freespeechers.blogspot.com/

This is what many, like ET, don't seem to get:

Palestinian TV:
"Extermination of Jews and subjugation of Christian
is goal of history"

By Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, Palestinian Media Watch

The final stage of history will be the subjugation of all Christian countries under Islam and the extermination of every single Jew - this according to the Palestinian Authority (PA) religious leader during Friday's Sermon.

(Isn't that a nice sermon for their 'holy' day)

The Jews are so evil, Ibrahim Mudayris teaches, that they cannot be subjugated like the Christian countries, and therefore the only solution awaiting them is death - literally the extermination of every Jew. In his words: "The day will come and we shall rule America, Britain, we shall rule the entire world, except the Jews."

In the sermon Ibrahim Mudayris reiterated many of the often-repeated PA justifications for the anticipated genocide, including the following hate messages:

The Jews have inherently evil character traits that Muhammad warned Muslims about in the Koran.
The Jews have been the source of conflict throughout all of history: "The Jews are a virus similar to AIDS, from which the entire world is suffering."
The persecution of Jews throughout history is presented as natural responses of self-defense by numerous countries against the evil of the Jews. Britain, France, Portugal, Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, all persecuted and/or expelled Jews - as acts of self-defense and revenge.
Zionism was created by Britain in order solve its Jewish problem by sending them to Israel.
God has predetermined that the Jewish problem will be solved with the extermination of the Jews.
God has predetermined that the Christian -Islam interactions will end with today's Christian countries under Islam.
Israel has no right to exist and will be destroyed.
PMW's report: Kill a Jew - go to Heaven - a full report outlining the PA systematic justification of genocide, can be found on the PMW web site http://www.pmw.org.il.

-----------------------

As far as I'm concerned, you don't negotiate with creatures this evil, let alone give them a state.

ET:

It's one thing to say, "I disagree with when Israel did so-and-so because of such-and-such," or "I don't like the minister of whatever because of...," and I don't think any intelligent person would call you an anti-semite for that - even if they wildly disagreed with it, assuming you were using somewhat rational arguments.

It's totally another thing when you come on and make grand generalizations regarding the fact that no one can say 'anything' critical of Israel.

Something stinks here, and it's not just the liver and onions I had for lunch.

No, phantom, I'm not saying that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace.

I'm saying that anti-semitism is on the rise in the world because it is linked to criticism of Israel. So, if you criticize Israel, then, you are also viewed by many Jewish groups as anti-semitic.

And no, I don't think that Israel is a passive victim in the ME; its occupation and settlement of the Palestinian lands is hardly 'just sitting there'.

greenmamba - your post entirely misses my point. I didn't say that there wasn't any criticism of Israel. That's ridiculous. I said that IF you criticize Israel, you are then viewed by many Jewish groups as anti-semitic. Get it? No?

To assume that there is a burgeoning growth of post WWII anti-semitism in the world -an anti-semitism totally unrelated to anything - doesn't make sense. Anti-semitism in historic periods has been linked to economic depressions and ethnic sectarianism.

The growing anti-semitism, I suggest, is in reality criticism of Israel - and both Israel's political authorities and N. American Jewish lobbies have been behind this merger of anti-semitism with criticism of Israel. This then flips back into anti-semitism..and continues on.

irwin daisy - with regard to Elmasry, I'd suggest it's both religious and political. All Jewish youth are required in Israel to go into military service except, I think, members of orthodox groups.

And, to flip back to the thread, Ezra is criticizing both Islamic and Jewish groups for behaving in a similar manner - trying to stop debate and questions by defining a group identity as outside of debate and questions.

for a people who have such intellectual brilliance the jews seem to have a self- destructive gene.

ET: This means that IF you dissent from the political policies of Israel, you are labelled an anti-semite. This effectively makes it almost impossible to critique Israel because your criticism is immediately rejected as psychologically perverted.

Of course. This is the same ET who called me a "liberal" for daring to critque the Conservatives for being silent on the Section 13(1) issue, the other day. ET is a Liberal "mole".

I said that IF you criticize Israel, you are then viewed by many Jewish groups as anti-semitic. Get it? No?

No. So what? Same applies to other groups and no-one withholds from criticising Israel because of it. You're unlikely to get death-threats unlike ........ I'm scared to say ....

There is plenty of criticism of Israel. A DISPROPORTIONATE amount even. The criticism often includes the bait-phrase, "I'm going to be called an antisemite for this ..." thus appealing to emotions one would think were left behind in lower grade school.

It's an issue on which your usual erudition and logic seem to desert you.

ET, Ma'am, I must respectfully disagree with yer learn-ed opinion.

"...its occupation and settlement of the Palestinian lands is hardly 'just sitting there'."

It is compared to the world-class ass kicking the Americans just handed out to Ash-canistan and Eye-rack. Two regimes are out, one is pushing up daisies from their caves, the other one's dictator got dragged out of a hole in the desert, now he's in another one.

Had the Israelis done that in Egypt and Syria during any one of the numerous wars there wouldn't be any "unrest" in the Middle East. There'd be a great big lack of unrest in fact, because two of the most baggy assed, backward dictatorships in the world would be replaced with... wait for it... civilization!

An idea whose time has come, perhaps?

jt - could you explain the relation between your two paragraphs? My criticism of you - and my criticism of Israel?

Sorry - no, I'm not a Liberal. Nor Mole. Ahh well, another conspiracy theory goes awry.

phantom - I don't think that the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank has any comparison to the US attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these were nation-states; Palestine never was.

I also think that attacking Egypt and Syria would have no effect on the Palestinian situation. Such an attack wouldn't have nullified the million plus Palestinians living in Gaza/West Bank.

And I don't think that the tribal governments of Egypt and Syria ..and you ought to include Saudi Arabia, Iran and Saddam's Iraq - have much to do with the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The ME tribal govts of Egypt, Iran..etc..are dysfunctional in themselves; not because of Israel-Palestine. They are dysfunctional because they are tribal rather than civic - and their tribalism and their dysfunctionality has NOTHING to do with Israel or Palestine.

As for whether 'taking out Egypt and Syria' would have moved the entire ME into a civic mode - I don't know. Back in 1948-50 might have been too early. It's happening now and I think it's easier now because of the electronic information network which has forced open those ME states to the outside world and disabled the ability of their govts to control information.

"So, what Ezra is doing is vitally important. The HRAct Section 13.1 has to go. And so does multiculturalism, which is intimately linked to this Section."

I AGREE, HOW ABOUT ONE STEP FARTHER?

I BELIEVE THAT IF HARPER WANTED TO GO TO THE POLLS HE RUN ON ENDING MULTICULTURISM. HE WOULD KEEP IS BASE IN WESTERN CANADA; AND, THE QUEBECERS WOULD FALL IN LINE. THIS ISSUE UNITES THE RIGHT AND QUEBEC, AND LEAVES THE LIBERALS AND THE NDP FIGHTING OVER THE SCRAPS LEFT OVER IN ONTARIO AND THE MARITIMES.

"and their tribalism and their dysfunctionality has NOTHING to do with Israel or Palestine."

That's a ludicrous statement. Listen to what they say once in a while. Listen to them quote the Quran. Listen to them Quote Mohammad. They all do it.

It's called Islam.

"and disabled the ability of their govts to control information."

LGF: "Pakistan decided to block access to YouTube from Pakistani IP addresses, to protect the ummah from exposure to Dutch MP Geert Wilders’ heinous film of blasphemy, criticizing the Koran."

"But they ended up blocking access to YouTube for a large part of the world. Oops."

Oops, is right.

Since my last comments on this post concerning ET's obsession with Israel, I note he/she/whatever has confirmed what I noted. Oh, and if one has observed ET's postings elsewhere on other topics one will clearly note the pattern to which I referred.

I rest my case.

I agree with many of ET's posts, but not on this subject. After a generation of being terrorized by their neighbors, Israel has shown great patience. I doubt any of the countries critical of Israel would tolerate missiles being fired at them. If they did they would have long ago ceased to exist.

irwin daisy - we've been through this before. I reject your singular focus on the Islamic texts. You see, what you don't deal with, is any examination of WHY these texts emerged and were accepted. That's what is important.

After all, anyone can dream up a New Ideology About the World; happens all the time. But, no-one, apart from a few family members and demented, will follow it. But, why did Islam emerge and become a dominant ideology in a particular area? That's what you don't examine; I think it vitally important.

By the way - your example of Pakistan has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, which is about political authority and land/water control. Not any religion.

And, oops, that's right; it's not that easy to control the movement of information in today's world. Somehow, somewhere, the links are opened, and authoritarian centralist control just doesn't have the same power it had two decades ago.

Alain - what pattern?

Gus - you are quite right. No country would tolerate missiles being fired at them. Neither does Israel. That's why it bulldozes homes and built The Wall. But, what are the reasons for those missiles and attacks? There's such a thing as a generation long occupation and settlements of the lands allotted to the Palestinians. You know, I think that action by Israel just might have the result of missiles and attacks....

"As someone old enough to remember Ulysses Grant's mass-expulsion of the Jews from conquered Union territories during the Civil War, Brandeis had..."

Gross factual inaccuracy. And the people at the "National" Post wonder why it bleeds red ink.

Actually, CanWest net a quarter billion profit each year and I suppose thy don't even notice the $50 million or whatever their flagship propaganda organ loses. In this context, and in a wholly unaccountable society such as Canada. Kay's fabricated historical claims are "logical", if at the extreme limits of reason.

"irwin daisy - we've been through this before. I reject your singular focus on the Islamic texts. You see, what you don't deal with, is any examination of WHY these texts emerged and were accepted. That's what is important."

ET, do you really think I care what you "reject?" Islam is an ideology that is based on and includes the texts, alright? There would be no ideology without them, is this clear? Furthermore, your unfounded and utterly ridiculous comment, "and their tribalism and their dysfunctionality has NOTHING to do with Israel or Palestine" is about the height of ignorance, IMO.

You sound like the very "cloud dwellers" you constantly ridicule.

Why Islam emerged, right. You'd like people to believe your bogus, completely ahistorical assertion that it is because the Byzantines invaded Arabia. Besides the obvious question of why the Byzantines would want to invade useless desert land in the first place - it's not in any historical account I've ever read. And more importantly, from the Islamic point of view, it is not in their texts. Got that? Nowhere. Not to be found.

So therefore Islamic history disagrees with you.

Your theory that the Islamic problem has nothing to do with the Islamic ideology is for lack of better words - unbelievably irrational. Astonishing, might be a better word.

PILE ON ET!!!!! ~:D Kidding!

One thing re. the Palestinian situation, it wouldn't exist without Egypt and Syria keeping it that way. I would add at this point that as ham fisted as the Israelis may have been, (and you're right, they have been for sure) their worst pales in comparison to what goes down in Lebanon with the "refugee" camps.

I see the argument between you and Irwin Daisy as two people running around the same mulberry bush. Irwin thinks the Koran causes the malfunctioning tribal society, you think the malfunctioning tribal society causes the Koran.

Irwin, sorry dude. I lead to her side on this one. Christianity is different since Feudalism got crushed by the steam engine. Islam is a deer in the headlights to modern technology. Wait until cell phones become a server-less wide area network, with no choke points. Censorship? HA!

'Course that deer is going to make a mess of that bumper...

Legally speaking they are NOT "occupied territories". To use this phrase is to swallow virtuosic Arab propaganda, whole.

ET I believe has a very serious animus against Israel; perhaps it's a family thing. I consider ET a anti-Semite, tho perhaps a unwitting one. Her policy choices lead inexorably to the destruction of Israel; she simply doesn't get the vile Jew-hatred of Arabs, and actually believes the conflict is a border dispute -- a national liberation movement rather than jihad. In short, the KGB got her, and got her good. As mentioned, Arafat was taught by the KGB to frame the conflict in this way for western consumption and the "Palestinian people" (with reference to the area Arabs) is a propagandistic invention designed to make Israel Goliath and the area Arabs David. If you read newspaper reports of the Six-Day war, you will find NO mention of "Palestinians".

Elsewhere she opined that Israel's right to exist is "debatable" while appearing to respect Noam Chomsky's vile acolyte Norman Finkelstein who is a truly sick man. If I were a psychiatrist I would do pro bono work for that sick jew-hating son of Holocaust survivors, just for the professional development. And oh, btw, he just finished a little tete a tete with Hizbollah in S. Lebanon.

99.9999% of anti-Zionism I encounter I take as anti-Semitism. Period.

The key thing is the double standard: one for Israel one for the rest of the planet.

From anti-Semites, I can never get a honest answer to the question: Does Pakistan have a right to exist. If it does, and Israel doesn't, you're a anti-Semite.

ET, I don't want to engage in a "chicken and egg" argument regarding who started the "Israel and their Neighbors" conflict....what the hell, they occupied those lands after being attacked by all of their neighbors, so they could provide a buffer zone to protect their citizens. No Islamic attack...no Israeli occupation. The smart neighbors like Jordan knew when to stop the attacks and now have peace. The others, that continue to engage Israel in warfare and terrorism, suffer the just consequences.

What*s all this focus on Jews?

This has to do with freedom of speech / debate as it applies to any one or any group.

It is simply an important change in fairness of freedom of debate.

There is nothing specific to any one group or nationality. = TG

ET, your attitude about Jews is a lot more evident than you intend it to be.

I'm curious -- based on my life experiences -- I'm wondering, are you by any chance of slavic/eastern European descent?

I am always curious at the twisting ways of our language. The Nazis were anti-semetic because they sought to eliminate the Jews. Yet most semites are not Jews and some Jews are not semites. Had Hitler aimed his troops at the elimination of Arabs and many Ethiopians I would tend to say that Hitler was anti-semetic but because he made allies with the Arabs I would say that Hitler was anti-Jewish not anti-semetic. In other words Hitler was xenophobic regarding Jews and philosophically opposed to Judeaism.

Anecdotal though it be I have also noticed similar feelings in those who most oppose Yahweh. The most virialent anti-Jews are atheist secular humanists (including genetic Jews). The most ardent in their support of Israel are those who attempt to follow the leadings of Yahweh. Of course on the end of the spectrum reside the nutbars that hold either Israel can do no right or Israel can do no wrong and I must add that certain cultures tend to accept or reject Jews more than others.

As for certain Jewish groups like the CJC I think they grasp the adder a little too close to their breast. Can anyone think of a way to make yourself more unpopular than to be seen trying to control peoples thoughts and attitudes? Which is why I personally support Ezra and his public discourse approach.

The USA supported his Royal Pompous Ass, the Shaw of Iran. Then later supported Saddam so to further poke at Iran.

Iran*s mullahs hated the USA and funded Hizbalah to snipe back at the USA indirectly by stabbing Israel from Lebanon and Gaza.

Iran also funded Muqtada al-Sadr to hit both the Americans and the Sunni in Iraq.

Iran and Syria may both be paying Hamas to train their youth to hate and attack Jews, fostering the hate against both Jews and the USA.

One suspects the Saudies, Quatar and others are backing Osama Taliban gangs in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Let*s hope Osama*s boys don*t find their way into Musharif nuclear positions similar to Homer Simpson*s.

Point being, the true tension is between Iran and the USA. Why does everyone focus on Israel? = TG

old white guy, "for a people who have such intellectual brilliance the jews seem to have a self- destructive gene"
history shows the Jewish don't "self destruct", it's mostly outside forces that are destructive.

"Point being, the true tension is between Iran and the USA. Why does everyone focus on Israel? = TG"

Wrong Tony!

This ALL goes to the Arabs around Israel and their perpetual embarrassment over the humiliation they faced at the hands of the Zionist State.

Whatever dynamics are most predominant today all stem from the root cause. The Arabs HATE the fact that the UN backed the creation of Israel. They HATE the fact that Israel is successful and prosperous. Egypt Jordan and Syria conspired to wipe them out in 1967 and got their asses handed to them. The rancor over that fact is THE driving force behind ALL of the so called terrorist agendas of today.
They HATE the fact that the USA stands resolutely behind Israel and by extension that means they HATE the entire Western European world.

That HATRED is the tool that is the prime motivation of the Islamist provocateurs who are exploiting the inbred culture of violence and encouraging and feeding the desperation and ignorance of third world shitholes that breed their followers.

The Issues are simple and brutal and they ALL revolve around HATRED of Jews.

BTW - someone tried to make a link between the supposedly Jewish controlled Media industry and the apparent failure of Jews to realize the threat of Islamist ideology!

Jewish control of media or anything else in our society is an apocryphal myth.
The Jews who fail to realize their predicament are LIBERAL / SOCIALIST tools too far gone to act rationally and the media for the most part just happens to be infected with that same disease.
It's a confluence of social and psychological disorder that paralyzes those inflicted in a manner that prevents them from seeing beyond their delusions.

I reiterate ... The Issues are simple and brutal and they ALL revolve around HATRED of Jews.

Ommag,

* * They HATE the fact that the USA stands resolutely behind Israel and by extension that means they HATE the entire Western European world. * *

= Western American and European world. =

Same thing. We agree. = TG

Why does anyone in the west care anyway? Not to sound insensitive, but let the lot of them fight it out and get it over with. Presumably the Israelis would win because of their military might and we could rush to beat the Chinese to make a claim in the oil fields. Problems solved…No more debating and wasting time on an issue that involves anyone else but them, and we’d save a ton of money in support to either side.
As long as the Israelis don’t nuke anyone we’d have a ton of viable beach front properties at our disposal at very reasonable cost.

The point at which allowable criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism is when Israel is held to impossible standards of perfection by a world community that is only too eager to excuse vile regimes with much worse records on human rights.

The United Nations censures Israel countless times with nary a word of criticism for China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. What are we to make of that?

Israel alone is expected to return land captured during a defensive war to her attackers.

Israel alone must not retaliate against daily aggression.

Egypt's wall against the Palestinians gets no comment. Israel's wall against Palestinian suicide bombers is treated like a humanitarian catastrophe.

Surrounding Muslim states busily cleanse themselves of Jews and Christians by making it impossible to practise their faith safely and receive not a word of criticism. Israel allows Muslim Arabs to stay and receive rights they would not get even in Muslim countries and gets called an apartheid state for its pains.

Putin ground Muslim Chechnya into rubble simply because he could, not because Russia was being attacked, but in breathtaking hypocrisy Israel is excoriated by the UN (including Russia!) for targeted reprisals at her attackers.

British universities and Canadian unions tried to organize a boycott of Israeli professors alone in the world.

The stench of anti-semitism is pretty noticeable, but I agree with a commenter above that Jews are at the very least conflicted since the vast majority in North America identify with, vote and financially support the leftist parties who spearhead the anti-Israel initiatives above.

"Furthermore, I don't think it is valid to bond 'Israel' with 'civilization'." thus spoke ET

Israel's enemies have always been the enemies of civilization - check Islamists, communists, Nazis. The ancient Romans (great builders) were barbarians who fought 4 years to put down the Jewish rebellion - in the end Israel won with the spread, by Christianity, of biblical ideas and morality.

As Joe said "The most virialent anti-Jews are atheist secular humanists (including genetic Jews)." Communists, Nazis, atheists, Islamists, are all anti-Jews (and I would add anti-Christian) because they are anti the idea that there is a single Judge to which all are accountable.

Phantom,

To be clear, I've never stated that tribalism wasn't a cause of Islam. If you look at their early history it was all about tribalism. Mohammad, however, created the super tribe, or Ummah, under the banner of Islam. I argue against ET's foundational assertion, that Mohammad and the creation of his cult was in direct response to Byzantine incursions into Arabia, which is as patently false as anything Edward Said ever said.

I also argue against her inane position that the ideology has nothing to do with what's going on with Islam today.

I don't know if it's much use to continue this debate; we're all pretty entrenched in our views.

No, I'm not an anti-semite; again, you are slipping into the perspective to to criticize Israel is to be an anti-semite. I reject such a merger. I haven't said a word against 'being Jewish' or the Jewish religion. Since I'm an atheist, then, the religion doesn't interest me; I'm neither for nor against it.

No country has a 'right to exist', understanding this phrase as implyin an innate or essential necessity. Countries are political structures and therefore, are created by human beings for social reasons. I don't think one can say more than that.

Israel doesn't have a 'right to exist'. Neither does Canada. But, both exist as internationally legally accepted creations of man. I consider that Palestine should also be established as such a human political construct.

I don't accept that Israel's occupation of the West Bank/Gaza are 'spoils of war'. I don't see the validity of such and point to the fact that the US/UK never considered Germany etc as 'theirs'.

I don't define Israel as 'civilized' or 'uncivilized'. That's why I don't bond the term to it. I think you'd have to define what you mean by that term. Do you mean operating by rule of law, by a democratic method etc? I hope you don't mean something as trivial as 'civilized' vs' barbaric'.

As I've said before, I think that Israel wants the land base (of the West Bank); that is, Israel's agenda is the land. I think that the Arab States have been against the creation of both Israel AND Palestine because they didn't want a civic governmental model, a non-tribal democracy in their midst. They've been strongly against Palestine because they didn't want an Arab civic democracy in their midst.

Your focus ignores the Arab State's rejection and focuses only on 'anti-semitic' arguments against Israel, ignoring their rejection both of a Palestinian state, and of the civic model.

No, I don't advocate the destruction of Israel. Just as I don't advocate the destruction of the US or Canada or the UK. These countries exist; they are political constructs. If someone criticizes the policies of the US, does that mean that they want the destruction of the US? Are they anti-whatever, because they do so? Is Israel or any country beyond criticism?

And don't try to submerge my criticism of Israel's political policies into a personal psychological aberration. I think my critique can stand on its being rational and factual. Not personal.

My critique is basic: I think that there should be a Palestinian state, following the map of the UN's 1948 outline; I think that Israel should not be settling the West Bank. Period. I think that Israel's occuption and rejection of a Palestinian state are wrong.
Now- is that anti-semitic? How could it possibly be?

irwin daisy, if you don't care about my rejection of the texts as 'basic', then why do you so consistently get upset about that? I repeat, you have to explain why those texts developed, why the ideology developed and was accepted and remains accepted. When that analysis is done, then, you can examine what needs to be done to change the ideology.

I don't think that the Egyptian and Israeli walls are identical; the Israeli one cuts into Palestinian farms and settlements.

So- this argument goes nowhere; we have two opposite positions.

irwin daisy - I don't think you understand tribalism. It isn't their 'early history' that was about tribalism. It's their ENTIRE history, and Islam is not a tribe but an ideology that rests within tribal behaviour; there are quite a few tribes within Islam. There is no 'super tribe'. Islam is not a tribe but an ideology supporting tribalism. You still haven't explained WHY Islam emerged and WHY it was accepted by so many.

No, the Byzantine excursion into the Arabian lands was not a myth. It happened. No, the area is not completely empty desert; the arab tribes were there - using a migratory pastoral nomadism. How do you explain that?

ET: The Arabs were offered the '48 borders in '47 and you know what they did.

Between '48 & '67 there was no push at all for a Palestinian state. This is very a very important fact because it implies that the call for one now might well be just a tactic.

There was a war in '67 that the Arabs lost but they would still not make peace.

The '48 & '67 borders are not militarily defensible and there has been no blanket Arab/Muslim acceptance of your idea anyway. The '67 borders (almost) were offered in 2000 but there was war. Israel simply left Gaza & this provides a test of what would happen. We see the result INCLUDING the fact that those who espouse your view, and there are many, simply don't care about Israel's security and will blame it no matter what.

If the Arab attitude towards Israel does not change, what right do you have to demand that Israel give up security captured while defending against aggression?

"I think that Israel should not be settling the West Bank. Period." ET

You think there should be parts of the planet where Jews are not allowed to live. That's rational. When you say "Israel" do you mean Jews or Israelis, or non-observant Jews, or observant Jews who are not Zionists, or secular Jews or just all Jews?

ex-liberal - your transformation of my words is disgusting. I didn't say anything about 'parts of the planet where Jews are not allowed to live'. That's really disgusting of you to even imply that I said such a thing about my words.

I said that Israel, which is a POLITICAL entity, should not be settling the West Bank because it was set aside by the UN and international consensus as the land base for a Palestinian state.

When I say 'Israel', I don't refer to any religion, any secular or observance of any religion. Nor am I talking about an ethnic group. I'm talking about a political entity. That's really quite disgusting of you to change my political comment to a comment about a people, a religion.

greenmamba - right, the Arab nations rejected the Palestinian state and immediately launched a war. My own view of this - and I blame them as heavily, if not more so than Israel, for the lack of a Palestinian state, is that the Arab states didn't want a Palestinian state, much less didn't want an Israeli state.

I think they didn't want one because Palestine would be set up right from the start in a civic and democratic model. And above all, the Arab states didn't want an Arab civic democracy in their midst. It would give their own people 'ideas'.

The Arab states have always considered Palestinians as 'the lowest of the low' as a people, as an 'ethnic group'. They were never, ever, interested in them, in absorbing them, in helping them.

As for what is happening now, my view is that the rise of Islamic fascism, which is a post WWars result of the tribal political infrastructure in the Arab States, has taken over and is using the Israel-Palestine conflict as a cover for their fighting against the West and against any notion of democracy in the Arab States (al Qaeda is against democracy).

Yes, Israel has a right to defend its borders, but I don't think it has a right to settle the land set aside for the Palestinians. As I keep saying, my view is that it should recognize the political reality of a Palestinian state and should not settle the West Bank. Period.

As for the hatreds that have grown up on both sides, and it is naive to think that irrational hatred of 'the arabs' doesn't exist among Israelis, this will take time to dispel. But I still think that a two state solution would work very well - and the two states would probably find their economies deeply interconnected with each other.

At the moment - there are several factors harming such a solution. One, is Israel's refusal to recognize a Palestinian state, and its settlement of the West Bank; the Other is the Islamic fascist's takeover of the situation and their using the Palestinians as Al Qaeda's front-line.
Again, my view is that neither Al Qaeda nor the Arab states give a damn about the Palestinians; both are using them for their own agenda.

You're right ET, it is disgusting to suggest that there should be no Jews in the West Bank.

Whether you agree or not, when people say Israel they mean Jews

ET,

I have never excluded tribalism as a cause in a myriad of causes. Neither have I excluded the inherent tribalism in Islam today. Regardless of whether you don't believe in the Ummah as the super tribe that is Islam, it doesn't matter. Because they do.

This is entirely where your argument falls short. You argue on an historical/material basis, disregarding all else. Almost like looking at an overview of the entire Islamic drama as if its simply single cell organisms reacting in a petrie dish. You exclude belief and its impact on history.

Furthermore, I don't "consistently get upset" about anything. You, however, consistently and purposefully misrepresent my argument, belittling what I say, relegating it entirely to the texts and not the entire ideology and its history as I have argued. Including, once again, what they (Muslim leaders, scholars and clergy) say and believe. As well as what noted historians and politicians have said during the entirety of Islamic history.

You maintain that Islam is the result of the Byzantine incursion into Arabia. I say that's absolutely false, and nowhere to be found in historical accounts, including what is stated upon the founding of Islam in the Hadith and Sira. Don't you think they'd know? Don't you think if what you were saying was true, that the perpetually victimized Muslims would be throwing this up as a defence?

I and others have repeatedly asked you to provide the evidence. You have not done so. Therefore it can be assumed you don't have any.

Just because you simplistically believe something to be true does not make it true.

ex-liberal - what is digusting was your claim that I said that there was some part of the planet where Jews were not allowed to live. My reference to the West Bank had nothing to do with religion but with a political entity, Israel. Aren't there other religions also allowed in Israel beyond Jewish? And your suggestion that a Palestinian state would not allow Jews within its borders is specious; the focus would be on whether they accepted being citizens of a Palestinian state.

irwin - I have provided the evidence, including even a book for you to read (Patricia Crone). I have also told you that in order to understand the thesis that the Islamic ideology began in the 7th c as a nativist reaction of a pastoral nomadic economy to an expanding agricultural settlement of the Byzantines - you also have to know:
- differences in societal systems between settled agriculture and pastoral nomadism
- the ecological nature of the entire area; this includes soil type, water sources, climate, native plants and animals
-demographics; this includes population expansion

Then, you have to know what happens when population increases beyond the carrying capacity of an economy
I'm certainly not going to fill up kate's blog with the data about these areas but have given you names of various authors who deal with this. You've ignored that I've done so and continue to claim that I know nothing about what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I know quite a bit about these areas -

You call all of the above 'single cell organisms in a petrie dish'. That's an absurd metaphor. Why? Because what goes on in a lab is isolate; what goes on in reality is not isolate.

I suggest that YOUR theory, based only on the ideology, is isolate and in that petrie dish. You totally ignore the ecology, the economy, the population size and stresses of that population on the economy, the stresses on a population by other peoples moving into their domain, etc.

Again, you still haven't provided any data on WHY the Islamic religion emerged and developed. The statements by Islamists, made some centuries AFTER the emergence of Islam as an ideology, are hardly historically factual or analytic.

You are the one who confines the analysis of Islam to its texts - including the outlines by Islamists of their history, their laws, their ideology. I'm saying that a valid history has to look OUTSIDE of the texts and into an examination of: the ecology, the environment, the economic realities of the ENTIRE area, including the economies of other peoples, the demographics, the carrying capacities of the various economies. Just reading what Islamists have written about themselves, won't provide you with a valid history.

Again, WHY did Islam develop?

Irwin, it's hopeless, but here goes anyway (I know, I know - Patricia Crone)

An answer to "why did Islam develop?" (sure to be rejected by ET)

by Rabbi Ken Spiro

During the days of Jewish clashes with the Roman Empire, Jews fled to areas outside the control of Rome and founded many towns and villages in Arabia. One very famous town, almost certainly founded by Jews, was Yathrib. Today Yathrib is better known as Medina and is considered Islam's second holiest city (after Mecca).

As in Rome, the local Jews attracted significant numbers of converts to their way of life and many more admirers.

M. Hirsch Goldberg, in the Jewish Connection (p. 33), sums up the story before the early 600's:

"In Arabia, whole tribes converted to Judaism, including two kinds of the Himyarites. French Bible critic Ernest Renan remarked that 'only a hair's breadth prevented all Arabia from becoming Jewish.'"

One of those impressed by the Jews' uncompromising devotion to monotheism was a young trader named Mohammed ibn Abdallah.

Although his travels had exposed him to Christianity and he was clearly influenced by it, he found aspects of it troublesome -- in particular, the doctrine of the Trinity did not seem strictly monotheistic in his eyes. He is recorded as having said:

"Unbelievers are those that say, 'Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary' ... Unbelievers are those that say, 'Allah is one of three.' There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished." (Koran, Sura 5:71-73)

However, there is no doubt that in the early stages of his spiritual awakening, Mohammed came to be greatly impressed by the Jews. Writes S.D. Goiten in Jews and Arabs (pp. 58-59):

"The intrinsic values of the belief in one God, the creator of the world, the God of justice and mercy, before whom everyone high and low bears personal responsibility, came to Muhammad -- as he never ceased to emphasize -- from Israel."

He clearly had some knowledge of the Torah as later he would quote Moses (though usually not accurately) more than one hundred times in the Koran, the record of his teachings which became the holy book of his newfound religion. Of the 25 prophets listed in the Koran, 19 are from Jewish scripture, and many ritual laws, as well as civil laws, of Islam parallel Judaism -- circumcision and prohibition against eating pork, for example.

CHILDREN OF ISHMAEL

Mohammed believed the ancient tradition that the Arabs were the other children of Abraham - through the line of his son Ishmael by the Egyptian maidservant Hagar - and that they had forgotten the teachings of monotheism they had inherited ages ago. He saw his mission as bringing them back. Paul Johnson, in his History of the Jews (p. 167), explains:

"What he [Mohammed] seems to have wished to do was to destroy the polytheistic paganism of the oasis culture by giving the Arabs Jewish ethical monotheism in a language they could understand and in terms adapted to their ways. He accepted the Jewish God and their prophets, the idea of fixed law embodied in scripture - the Koran being an Arabic substitute for the Bible - and the addition of an Oral Law applied in religious courts."

There is no argument that the Arab world into which Mohammed was born was badly in need of moral values and social reform. The Mecca of his day was a central place of pagan worship. The Arab tribesmen of the region worshipped a pantheon of gods there, including Al-Lat, the sun goddess, and Al-Uzza, a goddess associated with the planet Venus, both of whom were daughters of the chief deity, known as Al-Ilah, (Allah) or "the God."

The Kaaba, the shrine enclosing the famous black meteorite which was worshipped in Mecca before Mohammed's time, was also a site for an altar where blood sacrifices were offered to these and other gods.

The morality of the neighboring tribesmen could, charitably, be described as chaotic. Huston Smith, in his classic The Religions of Man, (p. 219) goes so far as to call the Arab society before the advent of Mohammed "barbaric." Tribal loyalties were paramount; other than that, nothing served to mitigate the blood feuds, drunken brawls and orgies that the harsh life of the desert gave sway to.

MOHAMMED'S VISION

Mohammed was repelled by the cruel and crude reality around him. In the year 610, at the age of 40, he escaped to a desert cave where, according to Muslim tradition, he experienced a series of mystical visions, including revelations from the Angel Gabriel. He returned from the desert imbued with a spiritual mission to transform the pagan society around him.

Preaching an end to licentiousness and need for peace, justice and social responsibility, Muhammad advocated improving the lot of slaves, orphans, women and the poor, and replacing tribal loyalties with the fellowship of a new monotheistic faith - which he called Islam, meaning "surrender to God." (One who submits is a Muslim.)

Initially, he attracted very few followers. After three years, Mohammed had barely forty converts. But, imbued with a passion that has been the hallmark of the truly great visionaries of the world, Mohammed would not give up. And, little by little, he built a steady following of committed loyalists.

The more followers he attracted, the more attention, and with it, the more hostility. The merchants of Mecca, whose livelihood depended on the pagan sites and rites of the city, weren't going to be easily displaced. A murder plot was hatched, but Mohammed escaped just in the nick of time.

While persecution of the Muslims was mounting in Mecca, the city of Yithrab was experiencing problems of internal strife and a delegation decided that the fiery preacher from Mecca would be the man to bring order to chaos. After winning the pledge of city representatives to worship only Allah, Mohammed agreed to migrate. His journey to Yithrab in the year 622 CE, the year 1 of the Islamic calendar, was immortalized as the Hegira.

Thus his life was saved and a new horizon opened for his teachings. It was in Yithrab -- heretofore to be known as Medina, "the city of the prophet" -- that Islam took hold in a major way.

Once he had made Medina his stronghold, Mohammed mobilized an army of 10,000 men and, in 630 CE, moved against Mecca, meaning to purify the Kaaba and turn it into a center of worship of the one God, Allah.

His success is legendary. Two years later, when he died all of Arabia was under Muslim control.

I ask you for evidence and you throw one name at me? This is evidence?

It's like reading something in the Enquirer and believing it to be true.

As far as demographics and population expansion goes - it was not due to an innocently expanding Arab population. It was due to military and cultural imperialism, subjugating whole populations of other races and people. In other words, an expanding Islamic empire, driven not by population expansion, or starvation, but mostly by greed and fear to keep the conquered in check.

"The statements by Islamists, made some centuries AFTER the emergence of Islam as an ideology, are hardly historically factual or analytic."

Worse, still, are statements made by a 20th century author, with loads of theory but no evidence.

I'd much prefer to rely on eyewitness accounts at the time, Islamic or otherwise.

To your point - just depending on unsubstantiated theories presented 1400 years after the fact won't provide anything, let alone valid history.

And certainly, disregarding their texts, peoples beliefs and eyewitness accounts is absurd.

As I've said before, there are a number of reasons why Islam was invented and developed. You might read Efraim Karsh, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Joseph Schacht, David Margoliouth, Snouck Hurgronje, Vajda, Abel, Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, Jeffery, Lammens, Spencer - even Maimonides.

As far as Palestinians allowing Jews to settle in a Palestinian state - did you read my post at 3:32? Did you read today's National Post article on page 3?

Perhaps you should start reading what Palestinians say and believe. You might start understanding that their theory does not fit with yours in the slightest.

ex-Liberal,

A hagiography that the apologists Esposito, or Armstrong would have been proud to write. I'd prefer Ibn Warraq, Spencer, or the many others included in the post above.

Mohammad, according to their own Sira and Hadith was a brutal monster. It's believed that his religious apprenticeship included some of the more arcane teachings in the Kabbala and Talmud. The final version of his cult taking on a lot of Zorastrian belief as well. Regardless, it's a mish mash that only served his own lecherous and perverted sexual desires and greed all too well, with his convenient revelations that only he benefitted from - such as allah sanctioning his marriage to his son's wife, etc., ad nauseam.

ex-liberal - of course I reject such a romantic and biased outline. It begs the questions, many questions and is obviously written only to support Judaism as a foundation of Islam.

By the way, according to Irwin Daisy, Arabia is a desert and my outline of pastoral nomadic tribes living there, and reacting to Byzantine incursions isn't valid. Yet, you outline Jewish settlements there! (By the way, the religion really isn't that relevant; what IS relevant is the economic mode).

Also, the outline doesn't explain what the admiration for the Jewish religion/way of life' was about. What was admirable? After all, Judaism is not a religion focused on conversions. Why were people converting?

I've read documents outlining conversions of natives to Christianity which extoll the virtues of such a conversion in a similar tone as your rabbi above.

For instance; it doesn't explain why monotheism is preferred over polytheism. Your rabbi assumes that monotheism is better. Why? There is no intrinsic value of either, but there ARE explanations for both types! By the way, the 'trinity' comment is straight from the debate between Arians and Athanasian views of the Christian trinity.

I also disagree that the morality of the nativist tribes was 'chaotic'. Tribalism isn't chaotic; no social organization can't last for centuries if it is - and tribalism was centuries old.

I also disagree that Mohammed's agenda was to move the people to 'ethical monotheism'; polytheism is equally ethical. And the outline of 'drunken brawls' and orgies is pure nonsense.

Your rabbi's outline is pure romantic fiction, in the manner of the Heroic Individual mythic tale. It doesn't explain why Islam was accepted. The people could just as easily have moved into one or the other of the other monotheistic religions (Judaism/Christianity). They didn't.

Most certainly, the religious ideology of Islam is primarily Judaic/Christian. In my view, Islam is less of a religion, because of that, and is primarily a socioeconomic and political mode. You haven't explained that.

irwin daisy - 'it was not due' -I'm not sure what population expansion you are referring to.

I'm talking about the emergence of Islam, which was not due to a population expansion by the nomadic arabs but to population expansion and territorial expansion by the agricultural settlements of the Byzantine Christians into the nomadic territory of the Arabian peninsula -

which is NOT, as you insist, an empty desert; the fertile central plateau is grasslands; the other parts have oases; the economic mode is pastoral nomadism.

You still haven't explained the reasons for the emergence of Islam. Your list of authors doesn't do that. Again, why did Islam emerge and develop? Why did people follow it? What was going on at the time?

So, in my view, you have to consider the economic and demographic realities of the time. You haven't done that; you've never done that. It cannot be due to the romantic notion of One Man. That doesn't explain WHY it was accepted and followed.

By the way, many Jews talk with the same vitriol against Palestinians as your 3.32 example. I think that both can be discounted; there are decent people in both groups.

Judaism is the foundation of Islam. It is also the foundation of Christianity. Christianity kept the Old Testament, Islam picked what it wanted, and discarded both Old and New Testaments.

"Also, the outline doesn't explain what the admiration for the Jewish religion/way of life' was about. What was admirable? After all, Judaism is not a religion focused on conversions. Why were people converting?" Have you ever heard of God-fearers? Pagans in the Roman world who hung out around Jews and Jewish places of worship because they saw something "admirable" in the Jewish way of life. It wasn't materialism or economics or the sword that made them do that - it was the power of the ideas.

I think you are also falling victim to cultural relativism. Societies based on ethical monotheism (the idea that the creator of the Universe is also the absolute when it comes to ethics and morality) are clearly "better" (in terms of sanctity of life, equality before the law, freedom, etc) than pagan societies (ancient Rome for instance). When did you become such a multiculturalist?

Also I'd be curious to see the frequency and intensity of those vitriolic statements by Jews (or do you mean Israelis) about Palestinians?

no, ex-liberal, I've never heard of 'god-fearers' and I don't accept that people thought that a monotheistic way of life was better. What is a monotheistic way of life?

I also don't accept that pantheism was worse, as far as ethics and morality.

What I DO accept is that the difference between an ideology based around vague unnamed 'spirits'; and moving to distinctly named spirits - is basic to mankind and was found in all early bands, clans, tribes. The spirits are usually local forces and directly related to the needs, physical, material and thus emotional, of the local population. So, you'll have the spirit of the summer rains, the spirit of the hunt, etc.

And, this is also directly related to the size of the population. Larger populations move into specifically named gods, multiple gods, such as those of the Greeks and the Romans. I'm sure you can't disparage their ethics, morality and ability to reason.

Larger populations move into monotheism. Nothing to do with any inherent truth of monotheism being better than polytheism; just the size of the population and the need for a cohesive authority.

No, this isn't relativism, which looks at different beliefs/behaviour within the same economic system/population base and thinks they're all OK. This is an historic view that looks at ideologies in different (not the same) economic systems/population bases.

Were the polytheistics less ethical than the monotheists? The various religious wars in Europe and the ME - eg, in the 13, 14, 15th etc centuries are hardly examples of 'lower ethics'.

What I can't figure out is ET's persistent claim that Israel did not go along with a Palestinian state. Of course it did. Didn't Barak offer 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Didn't Arafat reject this deal and launch the second intifada? Didn't Clinton finally recognize that Arafat was a insincere rotter?

Israel has proven over and over again its sincere desire to live in peace behind defendable borders. She gave back Sinai to Egypt TWICE. After the Six-Day war it offered to give back all its gains in exchange for peace and Arab recognition of the State of Israel. However, in Khartoum, the Arabs issued their infamous "three nos" rejection. The "occupied territories" were taken in a defensive war; they are therefore NOT occupied territories, say, in the sense that Iraq became an occupied territory. Generally, lands taken in a defensive war are NOT returned to the aggressor. Israel attempted to do this, but was offered no assurances in return. To return land to an anihilationist aggressor for NOTHING in return, is suicidal. To counsel that action is pure anti-Semitism in my books. The double-standard referenced above.

You do know that Arafat was Egyptian I presume? A Muslim Brother, trained by the KGB and a relative of the Nazi Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Jerusalem Mufti, who was directly invovled in the Holocaust. In what sense could Arafat be the "father of the Palestinian liberation movement" not being "Palestinian". Wasn't his interest from the get-go the destruction of Israel? Yes, he downplayed Islam, but without question, he was doing jihad, disguised as "national liberation" for western consumption.
The Arab countries weren't motivated by preventing a "Palestinian" state. Their motivation was the destruction of the new State of Israel, pure and simple.

The "Palestinians" never wanted a state. Never objected to Jordan annexing the West Bank; never objected to Egypt's occupying Gaza; stuck with the Ottomans till the bitter end. There was no genuine nationalist movement except in the sense of destroying a new nationalism.

This illegality argument drives me nuts. Great Britain ILLEGALLY changed the Mandate given it by the League of Nations. ILLEGALLY gave 80% of it away to Jordan. There's the "Palestinian" state as has often been argued here. As mentioned Jordan ILLEGALLY annexed the West Bank in 1948 and Egypt ILLEGALLY occupied Gaza.

Of course nations have a right to exist. A people has a right to self-determination. Can there be a better claim to people-hood than the Jews? The whole nation state system is based on this right to self-determination. You're playing with semantics here.

Judea and Samaria (West Bank) are the very heart of the nation of Israel. Without them, Israel is simply not viable -- not defendable.

Finally, after much re-consideration, I have to say that in making the claim that Canada is post-anti-Semitic Kay is nuts. The universities -- students and profs - are hugely anti-Zionist, and no, sorry, there's no difference. I simply do not accept the legitimacy of anti-Zionism, and steadfastly equate it with anti-Semitism.

After reading through all the learned detail in the above discussion . . .

* * I suggest that YOUR theory, based only on the ideology, is isolate and in that petrie dish. * *

. . dissected back to the petrie dish, there seems to be a missing result.

Some like the Jews and some do not. Free preference is allowed, but where are the clear thinking cures to the impasse?

Screwed up, bogged down, in limbo.

Let*s have solutions, oh learned ones, please.

Quibbling and no result? = TG

"By the way, according to Irwin Daisy, Arabia is a desert and my outline of pastoral nomadic tribes living there, and reacting to Byzantine incursions isn't valid."

ET, are you suggesting that I don't believe there were tribes in Arabia? Because if you are, that's an outright lie.

However, the Byzantine incursion isn't valid. You've proven that yourself by offering zero evidence for it after many, many requests.