Kristof

It's time someone belled the cat! The first thing you have to do is ignore protestations of anti semitism. In fact the quicker you define the term "anti-semitism" the quicker you'll destroy its power. The term was coined in the 1870's but it is a total misnomer. Semite or semitic as a racial distinction includes many more peoples than the original Isrealites. Today's Israel and it's resident followers of Judaism include racial characteristics of all the peoples of the world. Don't allow  the power of the term "anti-semitism' to continue. Stop its generic terror. Use the term properly as referring to all semites including Palestinians and Arabs. Instead of anti semitism refer to anti zionism and continually make that referral. Explain it to the peoples of the world and remove the main weapon of AIPAC.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1285 comments) on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 4:50:33 PM
 

Sigh. Another one off the deep-end...

Once and for all: a term means what it means because the guy who invented it gave it that definition.

The term 'Anti-Semitic' was invented to refer to Jews. It is an example of pseudo-scientific lingo, invented to lend the appearence of calm rationality to hatred of Jews.

The word 'Semitic' in scientific terms is a linguistic catagory, not a racial classification. But the inventer of the term 'Anti-Semitism' was not staking out a side in a linguistic debate, he was talking about Jews, regardless of ethnic make-up.

Modern day supporters of Palestinian extremism will often object to the use of the term, claiming that they too are Semites. Funnier still, some folks of Arab descent - who no longer speak Arabic! - are claiming to be Semites. "Oh, look at me, my grandparents spoke Arabic so I'm a Semite!'

Listen folks, once and for all. No one is really a 'Semite.' Languages can be Semitic, people can't. Arabic is a Semitic language, as is Hebrew. But anti-Semitism was never, and never will, be a word used to describe the phenomenon of hatred directed against all speakers of Semitic languages. So... no need to alert all those speakers of Assyriac, Chaldean, or Aramaic that neo-Nazis and White Supremacists are out to get them any time soon....

Doesn't anyone use Wikipedia anymore?

by Charles Lenchner (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 5:09:39 PM
 

Thank you for your Israel Piece..Here is mine.

Does AIPAC unduly influence the United States Congress?

By Mary MacElveen

March 13, 2007



In reading this piece, AIPAC conference opens to controversy starting with John Hagee the quote that I zeroed in on was one made by Senator Barack Obama who is a Democratic presidential candidate when he said, “We should take no option, including military action, off the table, and show strong support for Israel’s actions in last summer’s war against Hezbollah,” The option he speaks of is a possible attack upon Iran by the United States. I would like to ask Senator Obama is any attack on Iran by the United States in our best interest or Israel’s?



When Israel pummeled Lebanon last summer, as an American, I did not support those actions. In fact, I angrily blasted our government for funding Israel’s fighter jets to the tune of $280 million dollars. That money I felt could have been better spent here at home. I would say that money could have been used for our soldiers at Walter Reed while they were living and suffering in such squalor. As this story has broken wide open for all to witness that is where our tax money should have been going. But, then again, many have known of these abuses that our soldiers have been facing for years.



When I read, “AIPAC will again put a heavy emphasis on efforts to prevent Iran from going nuclear and on expanding U.S.-Israel cooperation to meet the weapons of mass destruction threat, “especially from Iran.” All I will say is that Israel should speak when they own a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. Seeing how they pummeled Lebanon last summer one must ask; who is the bigger threat?



In a previous piece written for my blog titled, Note to Prime Minister Olmert: We already knew that Israel had a nuclear stockpile, I wrote:“It is no secret and has not been for years as to how many nuclear warheads Israel presently owns as one reads Israel has now over 400 nuclear warheads. The cat has already been let out of the bag as one reads, “According to retired US Army Colonel Warner D. Farr, M.D., Israel is the fifth largest nuclear superpower in the world. By 1967, Israel already had 15 atomic bombs in its arsenal. In 1976, their nuclear arsenal grew to 15 to 20 nukes, and by 1980 jumped to 200. According to Farr, in 1997, Israel now has over 400 nuclear and hydrogen weapons.” Why is there no talk of their nuclear capability as we speak of weapons of mass destruction in that region? No, we invaded a country that did not have any and look at the price we have paid as a country.



Now here we stand years later worried about Iran when Israel has shown the propensity to attack another country namely Lebanon? They have also applied pressure on Palestine and have attacked the Palestinian people as well. In fact, last year they blew up a power plant in Palestine and we the tax payers of the United States gave Israel $48 million dollars to repair that power station.



While some may blast me for even writing this article as Palestine has used suicide bombers who President Bush labeled “homicide bombers” But that is a blow-back affect. No, I am not excusing such violence, but the world grows weary of this endless violence.



Farr even went as far as to say that knowing Israel’s nuclear stockpile is the very reason why “Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons.”



While we are on the subject on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, I found this information to be an interesting read, “In any case, the 2005 NIE concluded that Iran would not be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon until “early to mid-next decade,” with general consensus that 2015 would probably be the earliest. Interestingly, since 1995, U.S. intelligence officials continually estimated Iran to be “within five years” of the capability to make nuclear weapons.” So, how can Iran blow Israel off the face of the map when intelligence reports state they do not have the nuclear ability? Are you with me as I apply this logic?



Now what I do find suspect after reading how many of our politicians attended that AIPAC conference is this little news bit that the Dems have abandoned a war provision, in which “House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.”



You may be asking why I feel this to be suspect and this passage jumped out at me, "Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy." What about the impact it will have to the United States and our military? Did the Democrats just give President Bush carte blanche to attack Iran without any approval coming from congress? If so, I want my vote back.



I would like to know who exactly was in attendance as one reads, “The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.”



I really wish that Rep. Shelley Berkley D-Nev., who said in an interview "there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state." would read that Iran does not have this ability as of yet and will not in the near future. Isn't it best to get these countries involved in "heavy diplomatic lifting" as Senator John Kerry stated when he announced that he would not make another run for the White House in 2008?



I would like to know and I do suspect that others would as well, if we do allow President Bush to attack Iran without Congressional approval, how much will it cost the American tax payer?



Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi had this to say in a written letter to Vice President Cheney, "the administration's answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people." Should President Bush attack Iran one wonders what her statement will be then. How many American soldiers will be lost should President Bush decide to attack and in the worst case scenario invade Iran? But, the bigger question is, did we have to do it and was AIPAC behind this decision making process? You be the judge.



Author’s note: Please feel free to email me concerning this article as well as any other that I have written by using this address xmjmac@optonline.net

click here

by Mary MacElveen (264 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 31 comments) on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 11:26:03 PM