Posted on 02/21/2003 7:15:36 PM PST by SeenTheLight
SBprone, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact, anti-semitism is in the very essence of Marxism. Today's leftists are anti-semites because of their socialist ideological heritage.
Apparently you suffer from the same mistaken idea that many do--that anti-semitism, being well known to be a characteristic of the Nazis, is right-wing. That is false, as is the very notion spread by leftists for over 50 years that Nazism was "right-wing". Nazism was a socialist movement and although Hitler concentrated attention on the anti-semitic aspects of Marxism, that doesn't mean other forms of socialism was bereft of it.
Whether the products of Marxist philosophy are known as Marxists, communists, socialists, Trotskyites, fascists or nazis, they were ALL anti-semitic.
That's my take on it, anyway.
I don't think you can completely do away with it. The principle of neutrality as a morally defensible position holds. We can't control very well the actions of the Israeli government. They don't have a Bill of Rights. On an absolute scale and a scale relative to the USA and the personal experiences of most of its individual citizens, that is inferior. It is not clear to me that our position should be funding a government which has a different notion of fundamental rights from our own. Goes for Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Crete, Lebanon, u-name-it. Humanitarian aid -- food, clothing, medicine-- I don't have much if any problem with. Arms and money for arms and whatnot-- moral problems. This is a rather ascetic stance, but one that I believe is defensible. Switzerland is more or less my model (and the US before 1917 and between world wars, possibly excluding 1898 and maybe a handful of more minor outliers).
I am not convinced we need to be policeman of the world, that's all. There probably are a few real world exceptions to every rule, but I don't find anything about Israel as a modern geopolitical power particularly distinguishing. If they were the sole supplier of reactor grade U-238, then maybe (big maybe). But they aren't.
Further, let's re-visit your original premise of inalienable rights. While I think we all would agree with the concept of inalienable rights would you not also agree that even in our own country there are practical limitations placed on those rights. For example, incarcerated criminals do not enjoy unlimited exercise of their rights. Likewise, governments sometimes place temporary restrictions on rights in order to preserve those rights for the future (as is currently taken place in the U.S. today).
Sure there are limitations in the US. But they are not applied to populations at large based on religion or locale of birth. I don't think indefinite stays in refugee camps are particularly conducive to human rights or world peace. I want to believe that the majority of those people are not criminals. Most of the commenters seem willing to forgo that doubt and pre-judge these people based on where they were born or the actions of a small percentage of terrorists among them. My basis of judgement is: what if, by accident of birth, I had been born there instead of in the US? Where would I grow up, go to school, go to work, etc.? If a foreign country were supplying Apaches and so forth to help control my neighborhood, would I welcome that or not? Again, this is a mind experiment, and I am neither Jewish or Arab, but regard myself personally as a foreign neutral observer.
Finally I am not sure which non-criminal US citizens and residents you are referring to who has their rights restricted in the US. Americans of Japanese heritage were herded into relocation camps during WWII, and so on. But that happened 60 years ago. You have a contemporary example? I personally have yet to see the inside of a domestic relocation camp, and I do not know of anyone else in the US who has seen one in my lifetime-- that means, to me, that it is remote to a vanishing degree that they are a phenomenon that one can use as a legitimate example in the US for the purposes of this discussion.
Your examples of Israeli limits on Palestinians (or more accurately, displaced Jordanians with the occasional Egyptians,e.g.Arafat, thrown in) either unintentionally or deliberately convey the impression that those limits were the starting point of the conflict rather than the result of earlier provocation by Arab nations.
There is the legacy of past wars to contend with, I would agree. But some of these wars (eg 1967) happened over a generation ago. There are many people who were not of adult age when that war happened; I simply do not believe it is morally right to judge these people by the acts of others. I think those who do are simply fishing for an excuse, and their rationality is in question.
What other posters have been trying to convey to you (some more appropriately than others) is that Palestinians and indeed all Arab nations do not recognize the concept of inalienable rights. To apply your solution to the problem, at this time, would only ensure that no one in Israel would possess inalienable rights, arab, jewish or otherwise.
Again, that is relative to the region but not relative to the US. The $$$ comes from the US. We should ensure that we are not responsible for the suppression of rights, period. If we can't do that, we should not be sending $$$. We are better off letting them work out their differences without interference from us. Kind of political Heisenberg principle-- we interfere for good risks that we screw up in actuality.
This is not to say that every action taken by Israel is above criticism but clearly their actions are morally superior and more closely aligned with the principles of individual freedom than anything offered by the arab alternatives.
I question the "moral superiority" bit. One problem is that it probably isn't viewed in that light by the Palestinians under Israeli control, even the peaceful Christian Palestinians. It is not clear to me that we have the ability to make moral judgements on behalf of others, or the wisdom to do so. Look at what happened in Iran in the 1950's. We thought we were doing good. No one questioned it during the 1950's and 1960's. But it turned out that we were not doing good. That illustrates the problem: we pour money in, but we can't control the effects, and in many (most? all?) cases, we don't know the effects, or we are mistaken about the effects.
Look, take the example of one's local city hall here in the USA. We have only relatively recently stamped out explicit discrimination (i.e., circa 1958-1970). Go down to your city hall and you can find any number of screw-ups in which good and decent people get the shaft. We have a supreme challenge in keeping our own house in order, so to speak. I think it is virtually guaranteed that we mismanage most of our efforts overseas. I think Israel is a prime example. I am under the impression that $3B/yr is far more than what most other countries get from us when an actual war is not brewing, which is the kind of foreign aid-- constant dependable flow, non-humanitarian earmarked, non-wartime-related) I am addressing in this particular discussion.
Perhaps you can answer a question I have had: I have heard that some Israeli public offices are restricted to Jews only, or to those of the Jewish religion only, or that Arabs or Muslims are barred from certain public offices and/or occupations within Israel. Is this correct? (I'll probably dig out the answer in the next few days as I have time, so don't bother trying to snow me on it if you don't know definitively yourself.)
Finally the fact that so many Israel advocates cannot carry on a dispassionate discussion without losing their temper and using foul language does not convey an impression to me that I am dealing with rational, reasonable people in such discussions. This mirrors discussions I have had with some Israelis in person. I've discussed political questions with some of them and they end up saying "You can't possibly understand because you are not Israeli." That to me is the opposite of rationality. It is intellectual anarchy at best. It means to me that these people don't have good reasons at their easy disposal for defending their actions. Not a good indicator!!!
Thank you again for your response. It is at least polite and makes some good arguments. I do not regard myself as infallible and I'll adopt a good argument if I find it better than the position I already have.
Britain has also been a relatively safe haven, and the fact that much of our national heritage is Anglo-Saxon probably has something to do with this affinity many of us feel. The subject of anti-semitism in all its forms has been well documented. My point was that what I guess you would call the philo-semitism, of the American Christian commmunity has, I think, not been the subject of much research or writing.
You shouldn’t have to be a Republican in order to support Israel and to agree that the Left has an anti-Israel bias. I am an Israeli Jew living in Canada since the age of 9. I love Israel and I agree that the anti-Zionist bias of the Left is the new anti-semitism. With this point I agree with you Republicans. I disagree with the Republican ideology on almost all other points.
To see an example of someone who supports Israel and is a staunch anti-Republican, consider Bill. I agree with almost all of Bill Maher’s views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.