In Democratic circles, anti-Semitism is becoming normal

[One Bad Pig]

I just did - and I can report I am as handsome as ever!

Now - to the points. Let's just start with the title shall we? "In Democratic circles, anti-Semitism is becoming normal." It doesn't say "some" Democratic circles. It simply says "Democratic circles." That is an all-encompassing statement to paint Democrats in a pejorative light - ergo, painting them as "other."

Then we have statements like, "The truth is that unfettered socialism, though based primarily on a demand for the abolition of private property, always comes riding on a current of anti-Semitism." I have no idea what the author means by "unfettered," everything is fettered to some degree. But we have numerous examples of socialist states today that are along the lowest ranked of "anti-Semitic" states. So the statement, claiming "all," is simply untrue and again is all-sweeping.

The article then goes on to conflate taking a stand against some of the immoral practices Israel has engaged in with antisemitism. Consider this statement:

We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM. ‘That country has mobilized its Diaspora in America to do its bidding in America.

It is cited as an example of antisemitic language. But if the same statement were made of Russia or China, would we consider it "anti-Chinese" and "anti-Russian?" Would this statement be a disparagement of the people of those countries, or a criticism of the economic policies of those countries? I suspect the latter. So why is it being treated differently because it is Israel?

And anyone with a modicum of understanding of the history of Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) can grasp that the creation of the Jewish state necessarily displaced the existing Palestinian population. To them, it appears as an occupation, and has for 71 years now. A state was carved out of a region where that state had not previously existed. To do so, land already part of existing states was essentially taken by UN decree in an attempt to right an injustice. I am not arguing that it should not have happened - bu I AM arguing that the response of Palestine is pretty understandable. Indeed, we see a similar thing recreated in the U.S. anytime the U.S. government "seizes land" by designating it a national park or protected area. I do not understand how people who can be so outraged by such an action cannot understand why the Palestinians would have been equally outraged to have an outside agency simply "declare" that a significant part of their state was to be forfeit. I have to wonder, if you owned a ranch and over the course of 70+ years, this is what happened...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34164[/ATTACH]

...wouldn't you be a bit upset? The map comes from this source.

I don't know what could have been done to make things smoother - but i think we should have some sympathy and empathy for both sides of this situation, while rejecting some of the horrific things that have been done as a result.

And holding that position does NOT make me antisemitic.

Finally, the closing paragraph starts with, "Donald Trump’s gospel of ‘principled realism,’ his gentle and patriotic version of broad-church, America-first nationalism, offers a healing alternative." Anyone who can write those words and be serious about them is so divorced from reality, or so amazingly hypnotized by Trump, that it is difficult to know how even to respond. Gentle? Patriotic? Healing? Trump is none of the above. And Trump's gospel? OMG. Jesus of Nazareth must be rolling over in his grave.

This article is the writing of a Trump sycophant. I am amazed that CP found any part of it to be even worthy of referencing.

You start with twisting words, segue to a map which is deliberately incomplete (as it fails to show TransJordan), ignore historical facts explaining why the changes happened, presenting only the (clean version of the) pro-Palestinian view, and finish up by poisoning the well. You appear to be unequivocally anti-Israel, and seem to be attempting to distinguish between that and anti-Semitism (in a quite predictable attempt for self-justification).

[Sparko]

From what I remember, the Jews were fine with the division of the Jewish state from the Arab state until the Arabs attacked them and Israel conquered their land in return to create a buffer zone. Maybe if the Arabs left well enough alone and didn't keep attacking and losing, they would still have some land in the region to call their own?

[Cow Poke]

You start with twisting words, segue to a map which is deliberately incomplete (as it fails to show TransJordan), ignore historical facts explaining why the changes happened, presenting only the (clean version of the) pro-Palestinian view, and finish up by poisoning the well. You appear to be unequivocally anti-Israel, and seem to be attempting to distinguish between that and anti-Semitism (in a quite predictable attempt for self-justification).

I'll provide the "other side"....

[One Bad Pig]

From what I remember, the Jews were fine with the division of the Jewish state from the Arab state until the Arabs attacked them and Israel conquered their land in return to create a buffer zone. Maybe if the Arabs left well enough alone and didn't keep attacking and losing, they would still have some land in the region to call their own?

The Arabs have ALL the land in the region except for (most of) the narrow strip between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

[carpedm9587]

You start with twisting words,

No - but you are free to demonstrate exactly where words are being "twisted."

segue to a map which is deliberately incomplete (as it fails to show TransJordan),

I actually searched for multiple maps - and every one I found looks like this. If there is another one - I am not aware of it. Please provide. It is also unclear to me what Transjordan has to do with the points being made.

ignore historical facts explaining why the changes happened,

And the historical facts I omitted were...?

presenting only the (clean version of the) pro-Palestinian view,

I actually was fairly clear that I understand both sides of the issue - the need for a Jewish home state, and the resulting displacement of a pre-existing people.

and finish up by poisoning the well.

If this is is reference to my assessment the final paragraph, it is hardly a case of "poisoning the well." First of all, poisoning the well is usually a pre-emptive strike. Second, the person's choice of words is so disconnected from the reality of Donald J. Trump as to be laughable. Be that as it may, at no point did I say that his sucking up to Trump was a point for or against his general argument. I merely note it to raise the issue of obvious bias and that it should have all of us on our toes for misleading statements.

You appear to be unequivocally anti-Israel, and seem to be attempting to distinguish between that and anti-Semitism (in a quite predictable attempt for self-justification).

Well, my friend, you are doing what so many on the right regularly do, and you're wrong. I am not "anti-Israel" in the least. I am actually quite pro-Israel. Just as I am quite pro-America and pro-police and pro-children. Being for something does not mean you wave away any criticism. The government of Israel has acted immorally and (IMO) illegally on more than one occasion. So has Palestine. So has the U.S. government. So have the members of the police force. So have my children. I am not "anti" any of them because I am willing to call them on their shortcomings. I also do not assume that someone willing to call me on mine is "anti-Michel." If I did, I would assume my wife and most of my friends are "anti-Michel."