That German poll about the equivalence of the IDF to the Nazis shouldn't been taken that seriously: The 3000 respondents were called on the phone and asked questions liek "Do you agree that there is too much harping about the German past" and well, "Do you agree that the IDF is as bad as the nazis"). Look if you ask people such questions without any time to consider their answers they'll thinkl of what they heard or read on the news and respond accordingly. And as it happens the European media cob´verage is almost universally biased aginst Isarel.

Ralf, point taken. But the media bias you reference is in itself depressing.

I'd like to pull out here an Ann Applebaum quote from the last linked essay in that bullet:

The country’s collective conscience was enlightened by the TV-Series "Holocaust" to an extent that could never have been achieved by historical science and all its publications. What imperative message, fuelled by emotionalism, is carried by today’s self-reconciliation trend? The discussion on victimhood has now been extended to include the perpetrators. In the dispute over the planned "Centre against Expulsion," for example. [emphasis mine]

I'm no fan of the Schröder government, but I'm happy to say that it has cpmpletely rejected the centre against expulsion. There also is (at least not so far) no self-reconciliation. There is an acknowledgement that there were German victims of WW II, but with the precondition that it couldn't have happened without the German war of agression and genocide, and that there also cannot be exoneration without regard to guilt. In other words, it's about the recognition of individual victimhood, without any collective self-reconciliation. It's not about the Germans it's about some Germans who indeed were victims and had no part in war of agression or the shoah.

Even so I agree that this gives an opening to those who'd like to peddle their ideas of moral equivalency, and that the issue therefore bears watching.

As to the anti-Israel bias: This is pretty much standard fare in the global media. For example, the Christian Science Monitor has a poll up asking if "US-based churches should boycott certain companies doing business with Israel?"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1206/p11s02-lire.html

When Humans run something, mistakes are made, policy's have consequences intended and unintended, etc. No one is advocating that gov'ts are not subject to criticism and scrutiny, correct?

In what way can a person neither Jewish nor Israeli criticize any action or policy of the Israeli Gov't without seeming anti-semitic?

Justin,

Perhaps this will help...

We have nothing against Jews as such. We just hate Zionism and Zionists. We think Israel does not have a right to exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such. Heavens to Mergatroyd. Marx Forbid. We are humanists. Progressives. Peace lovers.

Anti-Semitism is the hatred of Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism and Israeli policies. The two have nothing to do with one another. Venus and Mars. Night and day. Trust us.

Sure, we think the only country on the earth that must be annihilated is Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that the only children on earth whose being blown up is okay if it serves a good cause are Jewish children. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Sure, we think that if Palestinians have legitimate grievances this entitles them to mass murder Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

Naturally, we think that the only people on earth who should never be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense are the Jews. Jews should only resolve the aggression against them through capitulation, never through self-defense. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We only denounce racist apartheid in the one country in the Middle East that is not a racist apartheid country. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We refuse to acknowledge the Jews as a people, and think they are only a religion. We do not have an answer to how people who do not practice the Jewish religion can still be regarded as Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that all peoples have the right to self-determination, except Jews, and including even the make-pretend "Palestinian people". But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We hate it when people blame the victims, except of course when people blame the Jews for the jihads and terrorist campaigns against them. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only country in the Middle East that is a fascist anti-democratic one is the one that has free elections. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand that the only country in the Middle East with free speech, free press or free courts be destroyed. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We oppose military aggression, except when it is directed at Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We really understand suicide bombers who murder bus loads of Jewish children and we insist that their demands be met in full. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think that Jews have any human rights that need to be respected, and especially not the right to ride a bus without being murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

There are Jewish, leftist anti-Zionists and we consider this proof that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic; not even the ones who cheer when Jews are mass murdered. These are the only Jews we think need be acknowledged or respected. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think the only conflict on earth that must be solved through dismembering one of the parties to that conflict is the one involving Israel. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think murder proves how righteous and just the cause of the murderer is, except when it comes to murderers of Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think the Jews are entitled to their own state and must submit to being a minority in a Rwanda-style bi-national state, although no other state on earth, including the 22 Arab countries, should be similarly expected to be deprived of its sovereignty. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that Israel’s having a Jewish majority and a star on its flag makes it a racist apartheid state. We do not think any other country having an ethnic-religious majority or having crosses or crescents or Allah Akbar on its flag is racist or needs dismemberment. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the mistreatment of women in the only country of the Middle East in which they are not mistreated. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the mistreatment of minorities in the only country in the Middle East in which minorities are not brutally suppressed and mass murdered. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We demand equal citizen rights, which is why the only country in the Middle East in need of extermination is the only one in which such rights exist. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We have no trouble with the fact that there is no freedom of religion in any Arab countries. But we are mad as hell at Israel for violating religious freedom, and never mind that we are never quite sure where or when it does so. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

So how can you possibly say we are anti-Semites? We are simply anti-Zionists. We seek peace and justice, that’s all. And surely that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

That didn't really help. Are you saying avoid cliches? like saying some of my best friends are jews but blah blah blah? Or are you saying there is just no room for non Jews or non Israeli's to legitimately make criticisms? Or something else.

There's room for criticism, of course. The point is that the criticism needs to be in context and not sound like the stuff above. All too often, it does sound like the stuff above - and when it does, questions about anti-semitism are legitimate.

If you avoid the cloaked hate in these kinds of example messages, there is still tons of room to argue fiercely about Israeli policies.

Mediencritic has more on German perception of Jews and Israel. It makes for uncomfortable reading.

If progress is going to be made in the propaganda struggle, it might be a good idea to legalize the publication of dissident writers in enemy nations. Apparently such writers today have to apply for a permit to avoid heavy fines.

Check it out

Presumably such writings have to be pre-screened to make sure they have the "correct" content.

Ok. I have to think about it.

I am not aware that for example that I am anti- semitic,would i know it? I have observed that when a person has a great emotional stake in something and it is tied in with religious belief, a critic can be seen as a heretic or persecutor. But I am agnostic. In my own view the three religions stemming from the God of Abraham have been very bad for mankind. Montheism seems to demand sectarian violence and sacrifice.

this is my own story of an anti semitic experience in a nutshell, for what it is worth.

I was traveling in Holland with a friend. We took a cab ride. I don't remember where from or where too, but on the way the driver talked incessantly, pointing out touristy things, we made comments and discussed whether we should we see this or that too. As we passed by our driver pointed out the Anne Frank house, we commented that we didn't want to see that. I am a student of history and knew the sheer horror of the Nazi's and couldn't bear personalizing it that way. My tourist visit to Dachau gave me nightmare's for days. My driver took my comments another way though, at which point the driver made a remark trivializing and idefinabley relishing what happened. I couldn't have been more shocked, and then angered, because he knew as did I what happened. I told the driver to "pull over we were getting out." Then he said he was sorry, he didn't know we were Jewish. I told him we weren't but that his remarks were despicable and I wouldn't ride with him.

That drivers attitude was subversive in his anti-semitism, only showing it when he thought it was ok, I guess. Is that what you were addressing in your previous post too?

Somewhat, Justin. We've certainly published articles in our "civis: hatred rising" category archive that tell us this sort of hate behind closed doors is becoming more common and more open.

The quasi-satire above also has other elements like double standards not applied to others in the region, consistent disregard for Jewish lives or suffering or rights of self-defence, etc. Read it over and you can see the themes pretty quickly.

Justin,

I think medical science is bad for humanity. In the past hospitals have engaged in such barbaric practices as operating without anaesthetic, operating in unsanitary conditions, and prescribing addictive drugs for minor ailments. To this day it often engages in malpractice. My own former stepson almost died from medical incompetence. Doctors and pharmacists collude in overprescribing ritalin and other drugs to children so that teachers and parents don't have to do the hard work of disciplining the children. Many doctors get rich prescribing drugs to addicted patients. Remember Fen-phen? I think we'd all be a helluva lot better off without medicine; don't you?

Joe

Generally, if I say that I do not favor undue influence upon my National Gov't by any other Nation, Whether it be Taiwan, Colombia or Israel, that I think is not anti semitic. What do you think?

Specifically, the crux of my view is that the U.S. and Israel have developed and undue influence on each other. The U.S. has both greatly helped and yet hindered also, Israel. We ahve provided material and moral support, yet have we not also kept Israel from obtaining the full fruits of victory in war? One cannot speak of this relationship with any ease.

I will look through the link you included.

Fred,

I hear you. Montheism is a mixed bag, with the good outweighing the bad? Speculative, but I suspect a false analogy. I offer this quote:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg(1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

I would accept Ideology as a substitue for Religion in that sentiment.

Well Justin, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Although if I ever catch you, I'll burn you, you heretic ;)

Agreed Fred. :-P

The 3000 respondents were called on the phone and asked questions liek "Do you agree that there is too much harping about the German past" and well, "Do you agree that the IDF is as bad as the nazis"). Look if you ask people such questions without any time to consider their answers they'll thinkl of what they heard or read on the news and respond accordingly. And as it happens the European media cob´verage is almost universally biased aginst Isarel.

So, basically the propaganda is working?

Islamic Fundamentalism? I think we have to be careful to avoid Christian constructs to a non-Christian religion.

Islam is a successor religion to Christianity, but isn't the same. Fundamentalism is the wrong concept there.

You could find many Christians who would view the Bible (a collection of stories from various sources) as something to be interpreted, as well as "fundamentalists" who take everything in the Bible as literal revealed truth.

You could not find ANY Muslim, Shia or Sunni, Salafist or Sufi, who would not take EVERY word in the Koran as literally true, God's authentic divine revelation to Mohammed.

Any Christian seriously suggesting that the Bible forms a superior form of government to laws made by man would be locked up in the loony bin. In contrast almost EVERY Islamic country uses Sharia Law, which is the divine law as revealed in the Koran, Hadith (collected sayings of the Prophet) and codified by millenia of scholarly tradition.

Sharia is seen as superior to any secular laws, how can a law made by man ever be as good, just, or proper as one revealed by God? This is why, for example, no one in the Umma will condemn stoning adulterers as anti-Islamic.

Tefft was right; there are unfortunately no Islamic traditions that say Terrorism is wrong and incompatible with being a Muslim. What was remarkable following Beslan was that no scholar, religious leader, or political leader condemned Beslan on purely moral grounds as contrary to the teachings of Islam. Politically unsound, bad for the image of Muslims? Check. Morally wrong in and of itself (no).

I don't think we should talk of fundamentalism within Islam ... it's a Christian construct for a Christian world and Islam (for better and worse) is not Christian.

Jim, your recitation of the standard litany notwithstanding, the practice of Islam is not uniform and monolithic as you assert.

So, basically the propaganda is working?

You could say that, but the damage can be mostly undone if people are supplied with spme decnt information. It would help if Israel made some efforts of its own to get uits own message out. As things stands Palestinian propaganda prevails by default.

The Truth has been Confessed by the Jooz!

:p

The Truth has been Confessed by the Jooz!

:p

First link above doesn't work.

Ralf (#20): Israel works hard to get its message out. What happens when the European media decides they don't want to print it? Reuters being an excellent example.

Why that is so is tangled up in larger question of Europe's philosophical health, but it's hard to get a message out to those who take active measures against hearing it.

Justin (#14) - I guess it all revolves around your conception of "undue influence." Read the legal definition of that term, which clearly implies malevolence and/or puppet-like control.

That kind of characterization can easily slide into the canard of a Jewish cabal that runs American foreign policy. If you go there then you're not only wrong, you're indulging in some pretty classic stereotypes that have been used by Jew-haters for hundreds and hundreds of years.

They're still in broad use today, as a matter of fact, especially in Europe (where similar tropes were a prominent feature of German WW2 propaganda) and among the haters in the Arab/Islamic world (who imported a lot of that propaganda into their world view, at all levels).

America has all sorts of reasons for its close relationship with Israel: historical, moral, shared values, popular support, strategic, etc. Ties on all these levels translate into influence, moreso than nations with ties on only some of these levels. As it should.

Britain, which also has ties on all these levels, created a lot of trouble for the U.S. recently by the way Blair insisted on handling Iraq via the U.N., delaying the invasion for about 9 months. This screwing around may lead, in the end, to Iran having the atomic bomb where that might otherwise have been prevented. Undue influence? No, just influence by an ally with a multiplicity of ties, and arguably a bad decision as a result.

That doesn't make Britain malevolent or toxic (which "undue influence" certainly implies), just an ally possessed of its own point of view who convinced the USA to listen.

"But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

You could turn that on its head and say: "But for fallen human beings to do good, especially while evil grows around them, that takes religion."

Many of the non-Jewish people who sheltered Jews during the Holocaust did so because they beleieved their religion commanded it of them, and the threat of execution for doing so was worth less than the value of their souls.

Ideology will always be inadequate for this task, because it is based on a this world calculus and so provides an unreliable counterweight when the stakes are raised high enough. Religion, by offering a different calculus scale, breaks these restraints more reliably. This was, in fact, the ultimate meta-message of the Exodus from Egypt - that it didn't matter if another man named Pharaoh called himself a God, there were imperatives that go beyond any man's power to declare or abrogate. Thousands of years later, the fight to abolish slavery would be led by... that's right, religious groups who remembered and cited this message.

While organized religion is a human construct and so prone to human flaws (see Saturday's Sufi Wisdom ), the benefits of ethical monotheism as described above are significant - and become far more significant if you look at their influence over longer periods of time and increasing human capabilities.

The message of the West's evolution is that religion is necessary, but needs to be separated from control over coercive power. There's a big difference between limited religion (which is bolstered by your arguments) and anti-religion (which has a political record, too, and some astronomical body counts to go with it).

lewy 14 writes:

I feel the “idiotarian” label is appropriate for LeVine, on accout of his eschewing all but the most perfunctory acknowledgement that the primary moral responsibility for terror lies with the terrorists.

's getting ridiculous.

Herewith draft 1 of the perfect partisan's guide to proving your opponent really means whatever you want him to:

Basic version: My opponent said A but he didn't say not Z so he really means Z.

Armed Liberal's extension: My opponent said A but in a later update he said not Z. This rhetorical dance proves he means Z but lacks the courage to admit it.

Glen Wishard's gambit: My opponent said A and not Z but I think he really means Z so Z is exactly what he said.

lewy14's levitation: My opponent said A and not Z but he said not Z in kind of a perfunctory way so he really means Z.

In the same sentence as quoted above, Lewy14 also said, I’m increasingly uncomfortable with the term [idotarian]. It's regrettable that this should happen just when his usage of the term is increasingly amusing.

Abu Frank,

I feel the “idiotarian” label is appropriate for LeVine, on accout of his eschewing all but the most perfunctory acknowledgement that the primary moral responsibility for terror lies with the terrorists.

My opponent said A and not Z but he said not Z in kind of a perfunctory way so he really means Z.

Do you see how friggin’ tedious this is? Let me short circuit this for you: yeah, you were right to extrapolate what I believe about LeVine’s belief from what I wrote (even though it isn’t explicit). And I assert the same right to judge LeVine’s writings.

You know, if these were specs for network protocols or DRAM controllers I’d say you mostly do a good job, you read as if you had a low level validating parser built into your eyes and a Boolean inference engine built into your brain. I value readers like you when I’m writing a spec.

I’m not writing a spec.

Let me be quite explicit: in order to convince me that he really believes (A and not Z), someone has to disavow Z in more than a perfunctory way. If someone writes at length about A, and when pressed for evidence about “not Z” can produce at most a single sentence (and here I’m referencing the email exchange with Robert Spencer), I’m not convinced of his sincerity in disavowing Z.

I could change my mind. Your witness.

lewy14: If you didn't enjoy comment #25, that's a pity (if no great surprise). To make up for that, a couple of amusing features of your own main post: (1) your long-distance detection of the sinister truth behind the Melbourne floral fiasco, a truth to which actual residents of Melbourne are strangely (or suspiciously!) oblivious; (2) the spectacle of a series called "Hate Watch" repeatedly citing LGF and JihadWatch while studiously ignoring the festival of hate ongoing in those blogs' comment sections.

Some droll aspects of your comment #26:

• your praise of my cyborg-like reading capability, on the basis of my accurate reading between the lines of your remarks on LeVine (not to skite about a very modest performance, but for what little it's worth, it's almost human-like, don't you think?);

• your equation between my correctly inferring what you left implicit and your arbitrarily negating what LeVine made explicit;

• your embrace of the proposition that if LeVine says A repeatedly and not Z once, you're entitled to claim he means Z (some people might confine themselves to inferring from repeated Z and single not Z to Z, but in your deeply human way you transcend that cyborg-like restriction).

Lastly: You discuss what you're entitled to infer from LeVine's inability to produce more than "a single sentence" of not Z. In the Jihad Watch post you cite, Spencer quotes the following from LeVine:

Criminals can't offer truces, and bin Laden and other groups that use terroristic violence are indeed international criminals whom the world community has an obligation to bring to justice.

Beyond the criminal minority, The 9/11 Report was right to demand that Muslims worldwide confront the violent and intolerant version of their religion that is poisoning their societies and threatening the world at large. Religious leaders and ordinary citizens alike must engage in soul-searching about the toxic tendencies within their own cultures similar to the one they demand of Americans and the West more broadly.

According to my embedded integer arithmetic unit, that's three sentences, but I can't complain if the computation is beyond your puny human powers.

Now, since humour is liable to be misunderstood, let me address the matter of your LeVine comments in stone-cold seriousness. This then is what I have to say about them:

• On the intellectual merits, your comments don't deserve to be described either as fair or unfair, accurate or inaccurate; but as just plain silly.

• Methodologically, since they rely not on argument but on name-calling, not on any sincere effort of interpretation but on an inane quantitative litmus test, they merit not refutation but derision.

• Pragmatically, since do not discuss LeVine's position but seek rather to preempt discussion, they constitute not a contribution to debate but a public nuisance.

I hope I make myself clear.

Ralf:

You could say that, but the damage can be mostly undone if people are supplied with spme decnt information. It would help if Israel made some efforts of its own to get uits own message out. As things stands Palestinian propaganda prevails by default.

That's a bit of a cop-out, don't you think? I'd like to believe that Germans - more than other Europeans - would be less willing to throw the 'Nazi' term around so lightly. I'd like to believe that the Germans alive at the time would drum the message in to their children, that Nazism was an evil the likes of which are rarely seen. I'd hope that Germans would be more attuned than most to a another wave of fascism, that they'd be able to see the signs. Alas...

The presentation of the IDF is defamatory to an extreme, but not to that extreme. Even with the media being what it is, looking at an Israeli soldier and seeing the SS demonstrates two things, one more than the other. First, they don't know what is going on in the territories. Yes, that can be laid at the media's door to some extent. But the most important thing it shows is that Europeans don't remember who or what the Nazis were.

Some of that may be due to a projection of past crimes on to the sons of those crimes' victims. The Nazis were reviled and rejected like no other regime has ever been. If those sorts of crimes are happening today, Germany was to some degree less responsible for them, ie, the Holocaust wasn't a flaw of German character or history.

I'd suggest that for some, that the new Nazis are Jewish would vindicate Hitler's actions, but that attitude is either a minority one or considered too much to be aired publically - for now.

I hope I make myself clear.

Yeah Frank, five by five. Over and out.

Colt,

it's not as if they came up with the terms themselves, they were presented with them by the pollsters. They shouldn't have agreed, but at the phone you don't have that much time to think your answers over.

They shouldn't have agreed, but at the phone you don't have that much time to think your answers over.

So Germans don't have an instinctive understanding of what the Nazis did? They don't realise that the SS systematically exterminated millions?

You're making my point for me. 'Nazi' should be - at the very least - a term reserved for the very worst people alive. Through over-use, the word has lost all meaning - even for Germans*, who apparently don't hesitate to use the word for the IDF.

*This is the thrust of my point. If Germans, of all people, are looking at Israel and seeing Nazis, how are they going to be able to recognise real fascism if and when it comes again?

Oh, don't worry. There are enough of us to point out fascism when we see it. Anyway, there are a lot of idiots in any country - I wonder how the results would be in other countries. I'm not saying this as a kind of moral relativism, but you have to put ot in perspective as far as knowledge about history is concerned. I do agree that Germans (in general, and not just the better informed ones) should know their history, but it also probably is too much to ask nowadays of any general polulation to be well informed.

There are enough of us to point out fascism when we see it.

Let's hope.

it also probably is too much to ask nowadays of any general polulation to be well informed.

True everywhere, alas. Which would make another fascist era more likely, rather than less IMHO.

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

As a Muslim, this makes me both sad and angry. This is not how a Muslim is to behave, nowhere in the Quran does it say to "Slit the throats of the Infidels." INstead it says stuff like, "And Aid the Christans and Jews by rebuilding damaged places of worship," and Protect and the People of the Book."

Remember, Terror has no Religion.