Hi all! I have a question...

[AnotherAlly]

...and I would appreciate honest answers.

I know it's been a while since my last post. I have a question for those of you in this fine forum.

I have many discussions on a different forum regarding Israel and their battles with Islamic militants and such. Many of the people that I have these discussions with seem to be anti-Israeli government regarding certain aspects of the struggle with their Arab neighbors.

They feel that the Israeli military uses disproportionate force when dealing with Hamas. Of course, I disagree with them all of the time, explaining that if I were the Israelis, I would do the same to protect my citizens from terrorist rocket fire.

They always refer to that rocket fire as merely a "nagging nuisance" and not really significant enough to warrant the recent incursion performed by the IDF. I don't agree with them and I tell them so.

My question is in regards to anti-semitism. These people that I am arguing with at the other forum state they are not anti-semites and have no ill feelings towards Jewish people as a whole. But their problem is with the policies of the Israeli government, not the civilians that live there. Are these people I argue with considered to be anti-semites?

They tell me that they have Jewish friends, but have no ill-regard towards them, just the actions of the IDF and policies of Israel's government.

Are they still considered anti-semites, even though their disagreement is with the government and not the general population?

I'm very curious as to all of your opinions on this matter.

Thanks, in advance.

And sorry I've been gone so long...

[Mediocrates]

The typical rocket is about 6ft long weighs 400lbs has a 35lb warhead has a 12 mile range. Like having a fridge hit your house @ 500mph & exploding. Israel spent a billion dollars building protective measures.

[bararallu]

...and I would appreciate honest answers.

I know it's been a while since my last post. I have a question for those of you in this fine forum.

I have many discussions on a different forum regarding Israel and their battles with Islamic militants and such. Many of the people that I have these discussions with seem to be anti-Israeli government regarding certain aspects of the struggle with their Arab neighbors.

They feel that the Israeli military uses disproportionate force when dealing with Hamas. Of course, I disagree with them all of the time, explaining that if I were the Israelis, I would do the same to protect my citizens from terrorist rocket fire.

They always refer to that rocket fire as merely a "nagging nuisance" and not really significant enough to warrant the recent incursion performed by the IDF. I don't agree with them and I tell them so.

My question is in regards to anti-semitism. These people that I am arguing with at the other forum state they are not anti-semites and have no ill feelings towards Jewish people as a whole. But their problem is with the policies of the Israeli government, not the civilians that live there. Are these people I argue with considered to be anti-semites?

They tell me that they have Jewish friends, but have no ill-regard towards them, just the actions of the IDF and policies of Israel's government.

Are they still considered anti-semites, even though their disagreement is with the government and not the general population?

I'm very curious as to all of your opinions on this matter.

Thanks, in advance.

And sorry I've been gone so long...

As another member succinctly put it: it's not our problem if they bring a knife to a gunfight. We field a professional army. We are under the microscope whilst they get a free pass for intentionally targeting civilians. A proportional response would be equivalent of what your country and the UK did to Dresden. Furthermore, the criticism we face seems to be grossly disproportionate to other countries in far greater conflicts with far greater civilian casualties. Where were all these critics when Jordan killed 20k Palestinians, mostly civilians? Where where they when Kuwait ethnically cleansed 400k Palestinians just a few years ago? Where where they when Lebanon killed thousands of Palestinians, even a couple of years ago?

This in and of itself stinks of anti-Semitism, like the UN and it's resolutions. It targets just the Jewish majority state. When we are selectively targeted it goes beyond the ken of average journalism etc... it's a concerted effort to demonify us... and to some in Europe to try and flip the Holocaust back in our face. There are many people involved in this but there is definitely a point of convergence, whether Islamist, Leftist or White Nationalist.

[Reffo]

For the issue about proportionality, you might want to look at the following thread:

Provocation and Proportion

Are they all antisemites? Who knows, some are, some are just ill informed and misguided and some have their own agendas and ideological biases. That's my opinion anyway.

[Mediocrates]

For the people who know history, just about every war since Napolean involves more civilian casualties than military casualties. The IDF is about as precise as precise gets.

As analogy, should cops fight gangbangers like gangbangers or should they fight them like cops? And if all the cops are there to protect 98% of the people from the other 2% then isn't having any more force than that 2% is able to muster 'disproportionate'? Perhaps we should do away with almost all cops seeing how most people don't wind up murdered, raped, robbed or assaulted.

[jeffk]

People see size up the death tolls on each side and think Israel must be using disproportionate force.

Israel should not have to apologize that fewer Israelis have been killed thus far by Hamas rockets or that fewer Israeli soldiers than Hamas fighters. It would be a mistake to interpret the rockets launched at Israel as a mere nuisance.

Thousands of rockets and mortars over the past eight years have made life hell for tens of thousands of Israelis. No self-respecting government can be expected to tolerate these attacks, especially since Israel unilaterally withdrew from 100% of the disputed land along the Gaza strip. It is the duty of the goverment to protect its citizens.

Israel's defense warning system and shelters have done their job and saved civilian lives (which Hamas targets) while IDF tactics have saved soldiers' lives.

But back to disproportionate use of force. Dispropriate use of force is defined by the objective, value of the target and intent. If Israel's actions are intended to end aggression, force becomes excessive if it used for other purposes like causing unnecessary harm to civilians.

This is a cut and paste but from an article by Dore Gold but don't have the link handy

What was critical from the standpoint of international law was that if the attempt had been made "to minimize civilian damage, then even a strike that causes large amounts of damage - but is directed at a target with very large military value - would be lawful. Numbers matter less than the purpose of the use of force. Israel has argued that it is specifically targeting facilities serving the Hamas regime and its determined effort to continue its rocket assault on Israel: headquarters, training bases, weapons depots, command and control networks, and weapons-smuggling tunnels. This way Israel is respecting the international legal concept of proportionality.

Alternatively, disproportionality would occur if the military sought to attack even if the value of a target selected was minimal in comparison with the enormous risk of civilian collateral damage. This point was made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, on February 9, 2006, in analyzing the Iraq War. He explained that international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court "permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks [emphasis added] against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur." The attack becomes a war crime when it is directed against civilians (which is precisely what Hamas does) or when "the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage."

[Sharona]

In terms of proportionality, it seems entirely logical to assume that Hamas have never been under any illusion in respect of Israel's military abilities.

To shell a country on a fairly continual basis seems to be an act of provocation.

To willing provoke when you are fully aware of your opposition's greater capabilities could be fairly interpreted as irresponsibility towards your own citizens. The responsibility for caring for them does not belong in total to the 'opposition'.

I can't imagine Hamas has been suffering from mass delusion and believed themselves to be on equal military terms with Israel. Hamas must also be fully aware of Israel's previous military successes - and so I would say their actions are calculated. Proportionality has already been a considered factor.

In the eyes of the world, Israel has been condemned, but I don't understand why, if the citizens of Gaza are suffering - as they clearly are - Hamas hasn't called for a truce or entered into some kind of agreement for peace talks before now. I am not sure why this responsibility for the suffering is deemed to be Israel's only.

[varian]

From the Hamas Charter:

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
Article Eight:

Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

...

The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty:
Article Fifteen:

The day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised. To do this requires the diffusion of Islamic consciousness among the masses, both on the regional, Arab and Islamic levels. It is necessary to instill the spirit of Jihad in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters.
...

"I swear by the holder of Mohammed's soul that I would like to invade and be killed for the sake of Allah, then invade and be killed, and then invade again and be killed." (As related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

One would think that due to the possibility of a future armed conflict that care would be taken by any population's leadership to help arrange some kind of protection for a large number of non-combatants from the ravages of battle as the UK did during WWII. The US and the former Soviet Union also prepared places for the safety of large segments of each of their own populations during the old 'Cold War.' Although it appears that the Hamas leadership has already chosen the correct path for all 'good jihadi warriors;' most of their leadership hides in the very same holes and under hospitals that could keep much of the non-combatant population safe from becoming collateral damage. In short, for the most part, they are hiding in holes and using the deaths of their 'non-combatants' to gain political points. No Pal death goes wasted!!! They avoid the 'compulsory,' individual duty that their own charter requires of all other Muslims. It seems that they want surrogates to die for the cause, but don't want to kiss the demon themselves. They preach the reward of paradise, but they don't want to reap the reward for themselves. As is indicated above, they claim that they want to invade and be killed over and over again to please their god, yet many of the Hamas leaders are stillcowering in their rat holes while their people die without them. Gross hypocrisy; no???

[KettleWhistle]

They feel that the Israeli military uses disproportionate force when dealing with Hamas. Of course, I disagree with them all of the time, explaining that if I were the Israelis, I would do the same to protect my citizens from terrorist rocket fire.

And what exactly is "proportional force"? Should Israel just equip a few gangs with rocket know-how and let them shoot back?

They always refer to that rocket fire as merely a "nagging nuisance"

Right. I suppose somebody throwing grenades into their houses on regular basis would also be just "naggin nuisances".

Are they still considered anti-semites, even though their disagreement is with the government and not the general population?

They are denying the Jews the right to defend ourselves and setting double standards just for us. Well, would you call it?

Sure, it can be because of misinformation. But, personally, I wouldn't call it anything else.

[Saudi]

When I hear anti-Semitic, it makes me laugh, because the real question is,

who are the Semitic people ?



If Tzipi Livni Came from Sam , I guarantee you that All the peoples of Europe are pure Semitic

Especially President of Finland Tarja Halonen

[KettleWhistle]

who are the Semitic people ?

Crack open a dictionary once in while. And a Jewish history book while you're at it.

[dayag]

When I hear anti-Semitic, it makes me laugh, because the real question is,

who are the Semitic people ?

If Tzipi Livni Came from Sam , I guarantee you that All the peoples of Europe are pure Semitic

Especially President of Finland Tarja Halonen

Don't act like we are European foreigners with no connection to the Middle East.

DNA testing has proven that the Jewish people are Middle Eastern. My own DNA type has its highest concentrations in the West Bank and the Dead Sea area of Jordan.

[Justcurious]

"Are these people I argue with considered to be anti-semites?"

Some members of the forum may not be, ask the moderatos.

[AnotherAlly]

Thank you all, for your replies.

So, what I can gather from this and please help me out with numbers.

What would you all estimate the numbers look like, in terms of popular support for the current IDF incursion and use of force in Gaza? In other words, what would be the percentage of Israelis that are supportive of the IDF's recent war against Hamas?

I am asking this because although I've read some answers to my original question about anti-semitism, I don't believe everyone truly touched upon it.

A couple of people here addressed my question in ways that I can easily interpret, in their mind, if people are anti-Israeli government policy, that means they are against what a majority of Israelis/Jews deserve...and that is security within their realm of life from rocket attacks.

Okay, so does everyone agree then with what KettleWhistle stated, that even people that are against Israeli government policy should be considered anti-semites as well?

Here's a scenario that confuses that conclusion though. What if a person that is sort of a liberal tree-hugger and they are against the policies of the Israeli government, but where they live they are surrounded by Jewish people and even his closest friends are Jews? If the person in this scenario has many Jewish friends, is he truly an anti-semite because he is against the policies of the Israeli government?

That's where things get convoluted in my mind.

Personally, it's starting to appear to me, that if a person is against the Israeli policy of protecting their citizens, even if it means wiping out Hamas and sadly, entails killing innocent people as well; if that person is against the idea of Israeli security, then they just might be an anti-semite.

I'm having trouble with this because there is a person or six, at the other website that I discuss these issues with, that are vehemently against the policies of Israel in regards to the measures they take to secure their land and people.

They claim they are not anti-semite. When someone even suggests it, they take offense. Yet they are constantly presenting arguments that appear to give groups like Hamas and Hizbullah a pass in most things that those groups do. It irks me to no end that they have very little sympathy for Israelis, knowing full-well that innocent civilians are being fired upon to the tune of 10,000 plus rockets over the last 8 years.

I don't want to come right out and accuse them of being anti-semites, that might inflame the moderators and I could find myself banned from there. I've been posting at that board for nearly 7 years and I don't want to be banned.

I am wondering what the best way for me would be to present this argument over there without getting into a flame war. I hate flame wars.

[bararallu]

When I hear anti-Semitic, it makes me laugh, because the real question is,

who are the Semitic people ?

Both could easily be Syrian. I can pop a few pictures of Saudis, guess how many look African?