only the right no one has to offer an established discourse on the topic

only the right has an established …
before it was
no one but the right has

Maybe I should have used the extreme right. Admittedly I often use right for extreme right. I prefer conservative for the group I accept on that side. I have the biggest respect for some conservatives.

You don’t need to, as long as you accept others to point out your own.

Psychopathic god, I understand your anger. It feels to you reverting to the accusation of antisemitism is a strategic advantage in dialog, and no one bothers when someone generalizes about you. But that must not be so. Stand up for an open discourse but beware of scapegoating.

I don’t think your quote above contains the crux of what Donald is trying to tell you. He went to great length to show you it isn’t only about Jewish sensibilities, but it’s is a general law.

I appreciate that Patrick Lang is sensitive to on the issue too: They [the Iranians] know we want to sell! Sell! Sell! Does that sound familar? Do you honestly believe Ahmadinejad’s vision of a paradise to come? Isn’t he manipulating just as he blames others for doing? He talks about peace and freedom and a good life for all for all while exploiting the clash. Pretty much Bush’s design if you ask me.

Am I to believe that his “Perfect Man, the last Divine Source on earth, Hazrat Mahdi” will need no money to live, will paradise with its flow of milk and honey take care of it? And who is to judge the evil versus the righteous till then? On what interpretation of the sacred texts? To look at what makes Patrick Lang angry: Aren’t there any economical winners in his Islamic Republic? How comes one of the clerics is Iran’s richest man? Seems his revolutionary guards are among the winners too. Why doesn’t he tell us about the losers, the unrighteous, traitors only? He has no self-interests? Do you you honestly believe that?

I agree with Donald, and yes we should all be really sensitive to generalizations. I often didn’t like US politics, but I never one second even considered that I had to dislike all Americans for that reason.

That doesn’t mean that during the last years the pro-Israel hawks I met on the web, their threats combined with utter arrogance, and a routine to call everyone an antisemite that challenged their perception while often using racist slurs against Arabs didn’t irritate me. Yes that felt like hypocrisy. If I hadn’t experienced it, I wouldn’t be here. But then its a human trait.

a) taboos lead to walls of silence. Instead of dialogs on the issue we are confronted with conventions, veils of silence. Apart from the philosemitic conventions only the right no one has to offer an established discourse on the topic, but than it may be shifting. (see Eli Clifton on : Dogs, Donkeys and Women, Oh My! Jim Lobe’s blog)

b) it may well be that since there is no widely established discourse on the topic, only an essentially philosemitic versus an antisemitic view, some may slip into the antisemitic perception simply since they find the first somehow not fitting reality anymore. But it shouldn’t stop there. Beware of scapegoating whole groups. Be they Arabs or Jews.

As for “scoring cheap rhetorical points,” that is a main tactic of hasbara. And that is why I challenge every instance when you call, “antisemite;” it seems to me practitioners of hasbara (AIPAC, etc.) get a pass. You warned me to “be precise,” to curb the rhetoric, lest Jews be offended. Where is the same warning to AIPAC, to Knesset, and why is it alright for Israel to respond to Palestinian rocket provocations with disproportionate physical/military force, but it is not alright for an ordinary citizen to respond to Israeli rhetorical provocations with even equivalent, let alone disproportionate force? see this essay by a young Palestinian on this disjuncture: (can’t find the essay just now; Phil posted it 2 or 3 weeks ago).

I didn’t create the gutter, but I will not be cowed by an adversary who uses gutter tactics, then complains if the victims of his attacks fail to observe all the nicest rules of etiquette, and fails to fully acknowledge the sensitivities of the oppressor.

Call me all the names you wish, Donald; I’m not going to stop calling out the hypocrisy of Jewish voices that warn me to tread gently on their sensitivities: there is no aristocracy of suffering. Further, when an oppressor kills children in the present, that act erases any claim to pity for the oppressor’s past suffering. It is no longer the case that, “their backs are to the wall.”

I am not familiar with any two-state plan that addresses the rights of Palestinian Israelis, who cannot be moved or repatriated against their will. The settlers within Palestinian territory pose another problem. It is highly unlikely that any significant number could be removed at this point, and talk of “territorial exchange” is detached from reality (contiguity, arability, water, etc.).

There is another aspect to the one state idea, beyond its value as a “peace plan”. It asserts unequivocally that discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity is unacceptable. If a Jewish state means discrimination against non-Jews – as Israel has amply demonstrated over the past 60 years (and before, in terms of the aspirations of the Zionist movement) – then there can be no Jewish state. A large and culturally/religiously autonomous Jewish community within a secular democratic state can satisfy all legitimate Jewish national needs (hint: domination and discrimination are not legitimate needs). Such civil freedom would also help alleviate the significant tensions within Jewish and Palestinian societies , by offering an alternative to religious and cultural coercion.

Yes, but its my understanding that Israel proper is currently the equivalent of Jim Crow — even after 60 years. One State, bringing in a large, justifiably begrudged Palestinian population, will likely quickly descend into civil war. Israel also will have the fear of internal terror at that point, and if there are a few attacks, it will turn into a racial tinderbox. On top of that, there are the paranoid fears of Iran getting the bomb hanging over it all…

It seems to me the two parties are best separated into two states, perhaps with an attached “option” a few years down the line to unite, and in the mean time a way is found to protect Palestinian sovereignty and prevent militant exchanges — maybe UN or NATO troops enforcing a cooling period.

Now as for criticizing the jerks who support Israel no matter what–criticize away. I agree with the vast majority around here on that subject.