There are some offensive cartoons about Israel, I agree, but they are not manifestations of anti semiticism because Arabs are also Semites.

The fact that you don't know what "anti-Semitism" means doesn't change the fact that many Arabs and Muslims ARE anti-Semites. Look up the word, if you are in doubt.

"Cartoons" about the evil jokes ARE anti-Semitic. And Arabs are not less guilty of anti-Semitism than a European or American would be in that case just because of their nationality. Get that in your head.

Showing a Jew as a sort of evil armed pig is anti-Semitism. And it is offensive.

It's even more offensive because it comes at the end of a long campaign to get rid of all the Jews in the middle east. The difference between Germany and the Arab countries is that Germany unfortunately succeeded. The Arabs were too late. The Jews were fore-warned and fought back.

They still do.

So don't tell us what to do. Change your own ways.

I hope there will be more cartoons of your icon.

Bahu,

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=100673&s=1

Good luck, man.

I think you'll find that there was a great deal of anti-Semitism before Israel came into existence in the 1940's.

I think he would also find that Jews generally lived as second-class citizens or sometimes slaves in Muslim countries. Most Arab countries had and have laws against Jews that parallel the laws of Germany in the 1930s and the laws of South Africa against blacks.

Of course these laws are perfectly all right because the Qur'an says so.

Incidentally, the Qur'an also says that G-d gave Palestine to the Jews and that they will return from all nations before judgement day.

I think he would also find that Jews generally lived as second-class citizens or sometimes slaves in Muslim countries. Most Arab countries had and have laws against Jews that parallel the laws of Germany in the 1930s and the laws of South Africa against blacks.

Really? Which ones? Can you cite these laws? It's not that I disbelieve you per se, just I never realised the persecution was actually enshrined in any legal codes, or that there were Germany-style deathcamps for Jews in any Muslim countries. I wasn't even aware there were Muslim countries with anything even vaguely approaching a sizable Jewish population.

We may just as well say that the 2000 years of anti semitism in the West which culminated in the Holocaust has just tranformed itself into Moslem baiting and this too is anti semetic.

---Bahu

Wait a minute now, Bahu----People not liking Jews has a lot to do with cultural and religious bias and blatant racism.

People not liking Muslims has a lot to do with unnecessary killing and destruction, hatred and intolerance on the part of the Muslims, who in turn demand, often with violence, to be accepted and tolerated.

How many people have the Jews taken hostage and beheaded? How many people have the Jews killed with their suicide bombers and carbombs? How many people have the Jews slaughtered with attacks on buses, restaurants and markets? How many people have the Jews killed in the process of rampaging in rage through the streets?
The Muslims have brought it on themselves. Whatever happens to them in the future, they brought on themselves, too.

Really? Which ones? Can you cite these laws?

I could look them up again, if you like. Or you can read what the Qur'an says about the treatment of Dhimmis yourself. It's law in many Arab countries.

It's not that I disbelieve you per se, just I never realised the persecution was actually enshrined in any legal codes,

Few people know that. That's why so many people support the "Palestinian cause". They don't realise what the alternative to controlling Israel is for the Jews.

or that there were Germany-style deathcamps for Jews in any Muslim countries.

Now you are just being ridiculous. You know full well that there weren't any death camps in Germany in the 1930s (as opposed to the 1940s). I tell you what I think. I think you don't believe me and thus thought you could simply put it down as a loony theory about Arab death camps. But it's not funny at all.

I wasn't even aware there were Muslim countries with anything even vaguely approaching a sizable Jewish population.

There aren't. Most of them got rid of their Jews in the last hundred years. Some hunted them down, some expelled them more or less politely, some tried to get rid of the poor Jews and keep the rich, some simply killed them. All the countries kept the property of their Jews. There are millions of Jewish refugees in Israel, but all of them were integrated into Israeli society quickly (within ten years). Had Israel treated them like the Arabs treated Arab refugees, they would also live in refugee camps now.

Morocco and Bahrain still have Jewish minorities. The Bahraini community is very small (35 in total, I think). Both countries protected them against the nationalists and extremists. But they are the exceptions.

The rest of the Arab world is now judenfrei (to use the German term), and the world never cared about these refugees. Most people never even knew.

The Hebrew spoken in Israel is the Sephardi (middle eastern) dialect. It's not the European dialect.

There are probably more synagogues in Egypt than Jews.

It's a myth that Jews lived alongside Arabs in brotherhood before the whole Israel thing got started. In reality the Koran speaks directly about how CHristians and Jews should be treated, and makes it clear that they should be disassociated and have no better status than second hand citizens. ANyone interested can read my previous post above. As ibn Kathir called them "miserable, disgraced and humiliated".

Such Liberal revisionism is just an extension of the Romantic era's "noble savage" where they applied all their most grand ideals to anyone non-European in order to degrade their own culture. Native Americans were basically just little Christians with grand Liberal ideals. Then, as now, it doesn't stick, and most people wouldn't think of trying to live in nations that force them to pay a tax in order to not be forcibly converted and live as the "miserable, disgraced and humiliated" because of their religious beliefs.

I'm not saying that all Muslims feel that way, or that even most of them do. I do take serious issue with the mythical idea that Muslims had no problem with Jews before the 1940's. In reality disdain for Jews and other religions was cemented from the very beginning.

It's a myth that Jews lived alongside Arabs in brotherhood before the whole Israel thing got started.

The typical revisionism I see is the story that Jews and Muslims lived in peace and that there was some cut-off point at about 1900 when sephardic Jews simply stopped existing. Hence the claim that Israel is a European and American colony and that the Jews should go "back" to Europe, that many Arab extremists support.

The "Palestinian cause" is all about sending the Jews "back" to Europe, that is why the PLO have a map of "Palestine" that includes Israel. And liberals happily support the "Palestinian cause". They usually don't even know about sephardic Jews and their history. They don't care.

There was this discussion here where somebody asked, among other things, which position each of us takes on the Israel/Palestine issue. Do we support Israel or Palestine. All the liberals said "Palestine".

They might have a very romantic image of what the PLO and the other Arab organisations stand for, or they might have a very dramatic image of what the Jews keep doing to the poor defenceless Arabs, or both, but they certainly support the PLO and not Israel.


Israel's position:

1. Two-state solution accepted in 1948

2. Two-state solution accepted between 1949 and 1968.

3. Two-state solution proposed in 2000.

4. Arabs can live in the Arab state.


Arab Palestinian position:

1. Two-state solution rejected in 1948.

2. Two-state solution rejected in 1968.

3. Two-state solution rejected, by Arafat, in 2000.

4. Jews should be thrown into the sea.

(If you don't believe me, check the Web site of the PA and read what Hamas have to say about the matter.)


But liberals support the Arab side. I really wonder why, as they do claim that they are not anti-Semitic.

German school books (and I assume others), don't speak of sephardic Jews in relation to Israel. And all the immigration arrows come from Europe and America. Liberals believe school books. That is good. But liberals don't think. That is bad.

If liberals would think about it, they would notice that Jews and Muslims could not both have lived in peace together AND been without a lot of contact. It's impossible. There was either a huge Jewish community in the Arab world that the Muslims lived in peace with, or there wasn't. It cannot be both.

The truth is, of course, that there is a large Jewish community in the Arab world and that the Arabs have not lived in peace with them for a long time. The Arabs treated their Jewish minority pretty much like all their minorities. And that is why Israel is so important. It protects at least two of the middle eastern minorities from the Arabs (Jews and Druze). If only the Kurds had had such a country as well!

do take serious issue with the mythical idea that Muslims had no problem with Jews before the 1940's.

The day the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 was the day anti-Semitism ended. At least it sometimes seems as if liberals see it that way. All the attacks on Jews since that day have been because of Israel's behaviour, not because of anti-Semitism.

That's why it's called "resistance" instead of terrorism when Jews are attacked.


Quoting Wikipedia about the Arab League:

1942 - The United Kingdom promotes the idea of the Arab League in an attempt to win over Arabs as allies in war against Germany.

1945 - Arab league member states declare a boycott of Jewish businesses in Palestine, this is continued after the establishment of Israel as the Arab League boycott.


Very funny, isn't it?

But hey, liberals, support these people. They don't want a two-state solution and they don't want the Jews. If that is the sort of thing you want to support, go ahead.

why you think , really think about, the united states never fought white country , know the history, of america , and yes i was born in america.

why you think , really think about, the united states never fought white country , know the history, of america , and yes i was born in america.

It is a pity that so many people born in America employ such bad English. But I think I read correctly when I understand that you wanted to say that America never fought a "white" country (by which I assume you mean a country inhabited by mostly whites), while implying that Arabs are not white (although they really are).

If that is what you meant, let me congratulate you. You managed to be the first person in this thread who wrote something that most likely everybody else will disagree with.

Perhaps your knowledge of American history isn't quite as sufficient as you here thought it would be.

The truth is that America has fought the majority of her wars against "white" countries.

The revolution was against the British. Then Americans fought the French, some north-African provinces of the Ottoman Empire (which I guess you could qualify as non-white), the the British again.

Then they fought themselves for a while.

Before and after that the fought the Indians (American such, which I think might qualify as non-white again), then the Spanish. Then came World War I (Germany) and World War II (Germany, France, Japan). Then follows the Cold War (Russians) with several smaller wars against non-white Koreans and Vietnamese (in alliance with each time the other half of Koreans and Vietnamese).

Then came a few wars against South American countries or individual people (Hispanics are not white, I guess). Then against Iraq, against Iraq, against Iraq (again, Arabs are white).

The most violent wars America fought were against whites.

Race traitors!

What you need are English and History classes. Where you were born doesn't make a difference. I do not respect you and your opinion less or more because of where you were born or who your parents are.

The point of view that you wxpress is mainstream European or even American. All that I am saying is that Islam like any other world religion has its share of troublemakers and we should not tar the entire civilasation as being intolerant and bigotted. There is also the fact that the West is politicvally and militarily at an advantage today and this makes Moslems extremely defensive.

And what we are saying is that Islam has MORE than its share of trouble makers than other religions.

It's all in the percentages.  Where Islam is, there is bloody borders, violence and intolerance. 

Let's use an analogy -- prescription drugs.  If someone makes a drug that has very serious side effects in 1% of those who take it, it gets pulled off the market, period. The DO NOT say "Well, sure, but some people have problems with Asprin too."  There is a problem with Islam. Period.  It's not like Muslims running around blowing stuff up and murdering innocents is something new.

There is something wrong with Islamic culture.  And I hope they are able to solve it before one of their followers does something like blow up a US city.  Because I know American culture too and I know what a democratic people would do in response and the result would not be pretty for the Islamic world.  (one only needs to look at the US response to 9/11 to envision what is going to happen if Muslims blow up an entire city one day). 

Muslims need to clean up their house before the west does it for them. 

 

one only needs to look at the US response to 9/11 to envision what is going to happen if Muslims blow up an entire city one day

Michael Moore would immediately make a movie about how Republican greed finally destroyed a city.

It’s interesting how so many of the right-wingers here at JU are speaking out against the Muslim culture of violence and hatred when 97% of the Iraqis we “liberated” from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein are Muslims, many with the same tendency towards hatred and violence. With the current cost of the Iraq war approaching 240 BILLION dollars and costs when we’re finished with this mess estimated at 2 TRILLION dollars, not to mention all the casualties, what the hell are we doing over there? Wow, what an idiotic and off-topic comment.

Yes. That is the problem. The positions have hardened into habits and the West believes that it can cruush the Moslem world. Unfortunately, Arab nationalism is now replaced by a pan Islamic Jehadist mentality thaT BODES ILL FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD.

Yes but here's the thing -- the west CAN crush the Muslim world. The only thing that seperates the Islamic world from being a smooth glass surface is western tolerance.  Because I suspect if roles were reversed, they would have already done far worse.  As has been pointed out, Iran's leader promises to wipe Israel off the map and is pursuing nuclear weapons.  Well guess, what? The west could wipe Iran off the map any time it wants. It doesn't because it has something that many prominent Muslims don't have -- decency.

At some point, the Islamic world will do something that will be horrific beyond compare and it will shatter western tolerance and that will be the end of Islam. 

Supporters of Islam need to clean their houses not for the west's benefit but for their own long term survival. 

"Yes but here's the thing -- the west CAN crush the Muslim world. "

But only if we forgo the whole "occupation, build them new infrastructure, set them up a new government' crap. Iraq I can understand because they were an oppressed people. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., I don't feel sorry for their populations. There is oppression there, but they are a party to it in ways the Iraqi people weren't.

So sure, we could rip the Middle East a new one, but could we do it without changing their diaper for years thereafter and breaking our economy in the process? It would require us to grow a backbone, and ignore what the old-world, has-been empires in Europe have to say about it.