Again with the assumptions about what I do and what I don't know. Can I ask you one more time to drop the whole arrogant practice of determining the extent of some one elses intellect?

I am completely familiar with the motives, both original and contemporary, of Zionists. I don't agree with any of the aspects of Zionism, including the fact that a certain religion is entitled to anything more than any other.

I don't believe Jews should be denied anything due to their faith, as such I dont believe they are entitled to any special treatment because of it either. Hence my fundamental opposition to Zionism.

Zionism is akin to the White Supremacists and Black Panthers who also believe they are entitled to more simply because of their race/religion. Newsflash, no one person is entitled to anything more than the rest of the 6 billion other people who share this planet.

Herzel may of founded Zionism but the name "Zion" itself belies it's aims at using Judaism to further their goals. He didnt pluck a random, secular, collection of two consonants and two vowels and coin a new phrase, "Zion". He deliberately founded the movement in Judaism and the surrounding beliefs that the Jew's needed a homeland.

This runs completely against my grain. It doesn't make me anti-semitic and it doesnt make me prejudiced. It makes me quite the opposite actually, I don't believe any race is more or less equal than any other.

Also, since you inquired I well aware that the ultra-orthodox Jews oppose Israel. In fact I am a member of www.jewsagainstzionism.com's mailing list and have approached them about doing a possible interview for ATSNN.

Again with the assumptions about what I do and what I don't know.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You gave one reason for your disliking Zionism which was that Zionists believe they have a divine right to Palestine as decreed by God. Considering that this belief played no real role at all in the formation of Zionism I think I am justified in asking how you came about accepting it.

I don't believe Jews should be denied anything due to their faith, as such I dont believe they are entitled to any special treatment because of it either.

Fair enough. However the motive behind Zionism was never that Jews deserved special treatment based on their faith. First off, while Judaism is based around a religion, that definition isn't sufficient. Judaism could be better described as an ethnicity or a culture. It exists independently of the religion itself.

This shared culture always marked Jews as being different than the dominant culture of their respective adopted nations. As a result they were singled out for persecution which climaxed, of course, in the Holocaust. It is persecution, not faith, that is the motivation for Zionism.

Since the world continuously proved itself incapable of providing Jews with the same rights and protections afforded to others Zionism came into existence to allow the Jews to be responsible for their own protection. This is in no way "special treatment." It is equal treatment.

The idea that nation-states are defined by the culture of its citizens is not a radical idea. Is there a difference between Jews having a state and, say, Cambodia having one? Not every culture is guaranteed a state, not every independence movement will succeed. The failure of the Kurds or Sikhs to achieve statehood in no way means that Israel is less deserving of their own.

At its heart, Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have the right to self-determination. This belief was formed out of the failure of the world to allow them to live freely without such a right. Zionism is the agreed upon solution to the world's "Jewish Problem." Other attempts were made to solve the Jewish refugee problem both before and after WWII and it was made clear that no one but the Jews themselves were interested. The issue became, literally, one of Zionism or death.

No one is arguing that Zionism is a flawless solution. Just that it was the best out of several other flawed choices. I find that people find it easy to criticize Zionism yet I seldom hear any practical alternatives offered.

Persecution is the standard for attaining the right to move to Israel, not faith based Judaism. Since any Jew has the right to attain Israeli citizenship, Israel had to codify a system to determine who qualified. Instead of using the religious definition they chose to use the Nazi definition. Meaning that you did not have to be truly Jewish to gain entry, just Jewish enough to be persecuted as a Jew. This is important because it demonstrates that Zionism was not founded on their own idea of Judaism, but that of their enemies. Had there not been anti-semitism there would happily have been no need for Zionism. One of your criticisms seems to be that Zionism is racist as it applies only to Jews. Why is it racist to aid your own people?

In short, it is not being Jewish that qualifies one as being deserving of a state. It is the oppression visited upon Jews solely for being Jewish that makes them deserving of the right to self-determination, to protect against such past and future events.

Being against Zionism, are you then thruly against the right of Jews to self-determination? If yes, are you then also against the rights of other cultures to self-determination or is it just Jews?

I don't believe any race is more or less equal than any other.

If you are trying to convince me that you are not anti-semitic, you may want to ditch the nazi propoganda. Judaism is not a race.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
If you are trying to convince me that you are not anti-semitic, you may want to ditch the nazi propoganda. Judaism is not a race.

I dont have to convince you of anything, hence why I am not trying.

You have you beliefs about Zionism, and I have mine. You don't see Zionism as a racial superiority movement, and I do.

Your warm and fuzzy portrayal of Zionism as some kind of benign force for Jewish equal status completely side steps contemporary reality. Does Israel take in the persecuted Muslims e.g. the Palestinians? Did it take in refugees from the Rwandan massacres? No they did not, because they aren't Jewish. Hence why I perceive Zionism as racist. It's no different to a Muslim nation disallowing a Jew citizenship, both acts are racist.

And yes Jews are classed as a race, can we side step the whole 3rd grade semantic quibbling? Grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "race".

2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

Originally Zionism might have paid scant attention to the religious underpinnings of the movement, but nowadays you must be insane to overlook the Fundamentalist Christian, Neocon and Right-Wing Israeli claims that the Jew's have a "God-given right" to the land of Israel and surrounding nations. The God-given mandate might not of been proclaimed by the likes of Herzl but it most definately is claimed by modern Zionists.

You have you beliefs about Zionism, and I have mine. You don't see Zionism as a racial superiority movement, and I do.

But there is a difference between a belief based on facts and one based on prejudice. You are choosing to base your definition of Zionism on beliefs held by a radical fringe and not on either the history of the movement nor on the beliefs held by the vast bulk of modern day Zionists. I would no more base my understanding of Zionism solely on the selfish justifications of a settler than I would base my understanding of Islam exclusively on the words of Louis Farrakhan or of Christianity on the beliefs of Jerry Falwell.

There will always be opportunists who seek to distort the message of any movement for personal gain. The vast majority of Zionists, both historical and modern, roundly reject the divine right argument completely. Why would you choose to ignore both the founder's and most modern proponent's definition of Zionism in favor of a small, (yet vocal) fringe movement's?

Grab a dictionary and look up the definition of "race".

This definition of race would have any nation, culture or club qualify as a race. Most folk would not consider Italian or British to be distinct races. Conversely it means that all Jews, whether they are white, black or Arab, are actually all the same race. This is not the generally held understanding of how racial categorization works. Believe what you wish, but the categorization of Judaism as a race is generally held to be untrue and very offensive.

Your warm and fuzzy portrayal of Zionism as some kind of benign force for Jewish equal status completely side steps contemporary reality. Does Israel take in the persecuted Muslims e.g. the Palestinians? Did it take in refugees from the Rwandan massacres? No they did not, because they aren't Jewish. Hence why I perceive Zionism as racist. It's no different to a Muslim nation disallowing a Jew citizenship, both acts are racist.

It is also no different than West Germany giving East Germany preferential aid after the fall of communism while ignoring Khazakstahn. No different than the NAACP offering programs aimed at helping black americans and not chinese ones as well. No different than Native American tribes exclusively allowing tribal descendants a stake in the reservation. No different than South Korea funneling vast amounts of food aid to North Korea but not to Sudan. Cultures tend to protect their own. It is not uncommon, in fact it is the basis for our modern system of nation-states. Perhaps it is fundamentally racist, to work towards bettering your own people instead of treating the world's population all equally. But it is not exclusive to Zionism by any stretch of the imagination and I do not share in your belief that it is something to be denounced.

Christian Children's Fund may raise funds to benefit destitute Christians and while I'd rather that they help everyone regardless of religion I wouldn't dream of denouncing their actions. The Suffragettes were not immoral in fighting for women's rights just because they did not also fight for racial equality. Likewise, Zionism is not immoral because they aided Jewish refugees instead of Rwandans. If Zionism is flawed for limiting their mission to helping their own first then it is a flaw they share with the rest of the world.

For example, Jordan is alone among Arab nations in that they accepted Palestinian refugees and offered them citizenship. They did this because the majority of Jordan's citizenry are Palestinian themselves. Do you feel that this was also racist, more importantly, do you see it as an act to be opposed?

If you want to fight racist societies there are far worse ones out there than Israel. So, why do you specifically oppose Zionism? Why do you find singling Jews out for aid more racist than singling Zionism out for critique?

Finally, do you disagree with the basic Jewish right to self-determination or not?

I apologize, all, for posting twice but I was thinking about something Subz said and I want to ask him a question.

Subz, it occurred to me that criticism is only one half of an effective critique. To denounce something as being wrong also requires a preferable alternative to be offered. Considering that Zionism was created as an alternative to genocide I feel that you have an obligation to describe a better solution in order to give your total refutation of Zionism credibility.

I don't believe Jews should be denied anything due to their faith, as such I dont believe they are entitled to any special treatment because of it either.

Were it that Jews were not denied anything due to being Jewish we would be in agreement on the issue of Zionism. But the unfortunate reality is that Jews faced (and still face) a gruesome problem with few realistic solutions. As I said before, Zionism is not perfect be any means. It was merely seen as the best answer to an issue with no "good" or "right" possibilities to choose from. Bear in mind that to refute Zionism while offering no alternative is tantamount to endorsing genocide. (Whether you like it or not, this was very much the reality.)

You have unremittingly criticized Zionism for being evil while its founders chose it for being the lesser evil from among their limited options. Knowing this, what would you recommend as being a realistic and preferable alternative?

A great post lots of info on the middle east! I think that we must stay the corce and do what we must to compleate the job. If we pull out then we must deal with it in another way?

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
But there is a difference between a belief based on facts and one based on prejudice.

Yeah what ever dude, you really are incapable of civility. But enough of that dead horse...

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
You are choosing to base your definition of Zionism on beliefs held by a radical fringe and not on either the history of the movement nor on the beliefs held by the vast bulk of modern day Zionists. I would no more base my understanding of Zionism solely on the selfish justifications of a settler than I would base my understanding of Islam exclusively on the words of Louis Farrakhan or of Christianity on the beliefs of Jerry Falwell.

And you seek to ignore their message, and impact on Zionism and Israel today. Who is more influential? The Zionist who believes Israel should exist peaceably and not necessarily in the Middle East, or the likes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Benjamin Netanyahu, Douglas Feith, and the rest of the rabid neo-con Zionist Israeli-firsters who espouse the views I loathe?

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
There will always be opportunists who seek to distort the message of any movement for personal gain. The vast majority of Zionists, both historical and modern, roundly reject the divine right argument completely. Why would you choose to ignore both the founder's and most modern proponent's definition of Zionism in favor of a small, (yet vocal) fringe movement's?

OK champo, time to couch your argument in some sources here. Can you show me some evidence of the common Zionist viewpoints that do not entail Jewish acquisition of Arab land? And the forceable retention thereof? Since apparently only the fringe of the Zionist movement advocates the divine right to hold this land.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
This definition of race would have any nation, culture or club qualify as a race. Most folk would not consider Italian or British to be distinct races. Conversely it means that all Jews, whether they are white, black or Arab, are actually all the same race. This is not the generally held understanding of how racial categorization works. Believe what you wish, but the categorization of Judaism as a race is generally held to be untrue and very offensive.

The word "race" is a neutral term. I attached no connotations to the definition of Judaism as a race. Therefore it cannot possibly offend. If you interpret the accurate literary definition of Judaism as a race as offensive, then it's you that has the problem, not I.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
It is also no different than West Germany giving East Germany preferential aid after the fall of communism while ignoring Khazakstahn. No different than the NAACP offering programs aimed at helping black americans and not chinese ones as well. No different than Native American tribes exclusively allowing tribal descendants a stake in the reservation. No different than South Korea funneling vast amounts of food aid to North Korea but not to Sudan. Cultures tend to protect their own. It is not uncommon, in fact it is the basis for our modern system of nation-states. Perhaps it is fundamentally racist, to work towards bettering your own people instead of treating the world's population all equally. But it is not exclusive to Zionism by any stretch of the imagination and I do not share in your belief that it is something to be denounced.

Well there you go, I also find Affirmative action racist. As for your other comparisons, I find them incongruous to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Christian Children's Fund may raise funds to benefit destitute Christians and while I'd rather that they help everyone regardless of religion I wouldn't dream of denouncing their actions.

That is incorrect, the CCF of which I am a sponsor, does not only help Christians. As that would be immoral.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
The Suffragettes were not immoral in fighting for women's rights just because they did not also fight for racial equality. Likewise, Zionism is not immoral because they aided Jewish refugees instead of Rwandans. If Zionism is flawed for limiting their mission to helping their own first then it is a flaw they share with the rest of the world.

Can I reel you back in from your tangent? Zionists have formed a state which only allows Jews to settle. All your examples do not seek to exclude other races from their country as Israel does. There is advocating and promoting ones own race/nationality and there is racial discrimination. While I have no problem with Jews promoting their own religion, I have deep problems with the segregation and discrimination carried out by the Israeli state.

If we were to follow the Zionist framework, which you obviously agree to, then countries such as the United States, Britain and Australia would be well within their rights to deny citizenship/entry to non-Christians. Which would include Jews. Does that not sound discriminatory to you?

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
If you want to fight racist societies there are far worse ones out there than Israel. So, why do you specifically oppose Zionism? Why do you find singling Jews out for aid more racist than singling Zionism out for critique?

Thats a lame argument. There are worse offenders so why pick on little ol' Israel. What a crock. Israel is a racist entity, and the Zionists are the reasons why.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Finally, do you disagree with the basic Jewish right to self-determination or not?

If it entails acquiescing to the theft of land from another peoples to accommodate that, then yes I do disagree with it. Much the same way as I would oppose the Tutsis demanding they be given a swathe of land in California because they were slaughtered by Hutus in Rwanda.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Subz, it occurred to me that criticism is only one half of an effective critique. To denounce something as being wrong also requires a preferable alternative to be offered. Considering that Zionism was created as an alternative to genocide I feel that you have an obligation to describe a better solution in order to give your total refutation of Zionism credibility.

Zionism's original goals are pointless to debate, what matters is how Zionism is used today. Zionism has been used to steal a tract of land from the Palestinians without recompense or any basis in legality. Any stance on whether Jews need a homeland cannot figure into any justification for mass theft and displacement of upwards of 6 million people. To accept the need for a Jewish safe haven does not equate to accepting the creation of Israel. I reject such a blatant attempt at polarising the issue.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
Were it that Jews were not denied anything due to being Jewish we would be in agreement on the issue of Zionism. But the unfortunate reality is that Jews faced (and still face) a gruesome problem with few realistic solutions.

How overly dramatic. How many pogroms have their been in Britain in the last two centuries? Or how many in the United States? You write like the Jews are the only people on Earth to have been the victims of hatred and persecution. Would you support the creation of a Kosovar homeland on the land you live in? If not, why not?

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
As I said before, Zionism is not perfect be any means. It was merely seen as the best answer to an issue with no "good" or "right" possibilities to choose from. Bear in mind that to refute Zionism while offering no alternative is tantamount to endorsing genocide. (Whether you like it or not, this was very much the reality.)

Again, a clumsy attempt to polarize the issue and castigate me for criticising a racially motivated and discriminatory movement.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
You have unremittingly criticized Zionism for being evil while its founders chose it for being the lesser evil from among their limited options. Knowing this, what would you recommend as being a realistic and preferable alternative?

That's like excusing the Crusades because Jesus founded Christianity based on the principles of peace and forgiveness. Your defence of Zionism based solely on the intent of it's creator is ridiculous.

Zionists have formed a state which only allows Jews to settle

Really, where is it? Because Israel is 20% Palestinian. Most are Muslim but there are also Christians and Druze in there. They have equal rights with Jewish Israelis and have representation in the Knesset.

All your examples do not seek to exclude other races from their country as Israel does.

Not only does Israel not exclude other “races,” but non-Jews of all sorts are allowed to emigrate and apply for citizenship.

In fact, being Jewish is not even a prerequisite to qualify for guaranteed citizenship under “right of return.” Citizenship is guaranteed for all Jews but also for non-Jews who are potential victims of anti-semitism. How many times do I have to say this? It is not about the religion! It is about the history of persecution. A little less than half of all recent immigrants were non-Jews.

Interestingly, Israel also has a recent influx of migrant workers from Thailand and China. While ostensibly having only temporary resident status, the history of such programs in other countries has always led to large percentages becoming citizens. How it plays out in Israel will be interesting to watch.

Well there you go, I also find Affirmative action racist

Really? I find it to be an essential tool provided it is used sparingly. I’ll give you an example. Arab Israelis fared poorly in terms of land acquisition during the state’s formative years. The nomadic nature of the Bedouins left them especially bereft of property. To help equalize land distribution Israel has an affirmative action program that offers Bedouins favorable rates and financing to encourage them to purchase real estate. I have no problem with this, as it is preferable to any alternatives for landless Bedouins (who no longer have enough available space to support a nomadic lifestyle.) It is technically racist, you are right about that. But it is still the best of all prospective solutions.

That is incorrect, the CCF of which I am a sponsor, does not only help Christians. As that would be immoral.

Oh, good. I’m glad I was wrong about that. See what happens when you make assumptions based on prejudice and don’t bother checking out the facts? I showed my *ss on that one. Just goes to show, you learn something new every day. Well, some of us do, at least.

Thats a lame argument. There are worse offenders so why pick on little ol' Israel.

It’s not an argument, it is a question. I want to know why you reserve such rage specifically for Israel and Zionism. I’m not asking how you justify the anger, you explain that elsewhere by regurgitating untrue anti-Zionist propaganda that would have been easily dispelled had you thought to Google it. Right now, I’m just asking why you chose Israel specifically over any other nation that you deem racist.

Zionism has been used to steal a tract of land from the Palestinians without recompense or any basis in legality.

Well, everyone could have kept on fighting World War One, but the Turks had to go and sell out the Palestinians by signing the Treaty. The irony is that in the end the Hashemites got to keep almost all of Palestine anyway, so the Jews got screwed too.

Compensation is available though. But to get it you have to abandon any legal right of return that may happen in the future so not too many Palestinians go for it. My plan was always that they could move into the homes of the Jews that were displaced from Arab lands and absorbed into Israel. Hey, the Palestinians already live in those countries, (even though they aren’t allowed to buy land, obtain citizenship or get access to healthcare as decided by the Arab League.) At least give them the Jews’ old houses!

Any stance on whether Jews need a homeland cannot figure into any justification for mass theft and displacement of upwards of 6 million people.

I agree. Luckily this never happened. (In regards to Israel anyway. But something tells me you’re not thinking of Stalin here.)

But they did displace upwards of 600,000 people. However that has nothing to do with Jewish persecution in Europe. That was because those folks attacked the Jewish settlers who were living there and didn’t stop until they left or were expelled. Some were offered the opportunity to return right after the war of independence but it was on the condition that they all live in peace together so the Arab factions never went for it.

Incidentally, if the Zionists stole Palestine then does the house of Saud qualify as a grand larcenist? They stole way more. And they don't let women drive or wear sexy undergarments. And they're friends with the Bushes.

Would you support the creation of a Kosovar homeland on the land you live in? If not, why not?

Excellent question. (I am assuming you are referring to Albanians when you say Kosovar, right?) I would not. However if their situation more closely resembled that of the Jews and Palestine, then I would.

If you are at a loss as to how the two ethnicities differ historically or why the relationship of Albanians to America is unlike that of the Jews to Israel then I can recommend some reading for you.

Your defence of Zionism based solely on the intent of it's creator is ridiculous.

Hey, at least I’m basing my opinion on historical events that actually, you know, like… occurred. But look at it this way, you have yet to offer a single example of Zionism being fundamentally racist in nature that is based on anything other than conjecture and untrue (and weird) facts about Israel.

Seriously, I actually understand now why you totally reject Zionism and the right of Israel to exist. You have very little information as to what exactly happened and even less as to what is happening today or even why it is happening. And the information that you do have is totally made up.

Come on, you didn’t actually study this stuff, did you? I don’t think you ever read anything by Hertzl. I think you got all of your information from anti-Zionist propaganda websites. Maybe you read a book of revisionist history somewhere along the way, maybe not. But if you really got this information by reading actual, published books written by reputable people with real history or poly-sci degrees then I am begging you, please tell me what they are. Because I’m dying to see where you learned that Paul Wolfowitz has an influential Zionist platform or that Jews only let other Jews into Israel. My favorite is that the Zionists displaced over 6 MILLION native Palestinians. I don’t even think that the population of Israel NOW is much over 6 million.

Seriously, were there any books? Please tell me what they are.

Originally posted by Shaktimaan
How so? Look up "prejudice." It is not equivalent to calling you "racist" which is what you seem to be thinking.

Oh fantastic, now I'm also prejudiced. Well you're an apologist. That was fun! In the interest of brevity I wont waste any more server space in replying to some one who cant stop themselves from labelling other ATS members.

Such a shame, young grasshopper, to leave now just when your education was beginning in earnest. Such is life.

Have it your way, take your ball and go home. Dealing with accurate facts and legitimate history is a tough game, it would be a shame if your thin skin got bruised. You may have even have had to re-evaluate your unshakable belief system at some point in your journey.

Better to stay at home where it's warm and there's no one around who's actually read a book or two to challenge your belief system.

Keep the faith!

I am just wondering how you can claim that there is no basis for referring to the original Jews as a racial grouping?

The original Jews? From 3000 years ago? I'm not really claiming anything about them. I'm talking about the cultural heritage of Judaism and the modern interpretation.

It's like this. Whether you could define the very first Jews as being of a single race or not is besides the point. After the diaspora, most of the Jews were flung all over the globe. The real story is a lot more complex than you are making it seem. There was no one group that we can historically track as being the forefathers of the ashkenaz or sephardic movements and the different groups criss crossed at different points in time.

What you are doing here is assigning the mantle of "Original Jew" to an ethnic group and then using that as justification for disputing a modern political decision. Now, whether or not every modern Jew can trace a blood relative back to Israel from 3000 years ago is irrelevant. That is precisely what I was arguing over the past few pages.

The cultural significance of Israel as a Jewish homeland is not derived from the idea of a blood tie. It is an ethnic, cultural, religious and national tie that sort of transcends any one, simple classification. The best definition of Jew I've seen would be the one given in the Torah, that Judaism is a nation. As such, people can be accepted in and assume the identity provided they are willing to abide by the rules of the community. However, there is also a quasi-ethnic side to it as the identity of Judaism is passed down matrilinearly. Don't confuse that with an assurance that every Jew does or should be able to trace their roots back to Israel.

Besides, there is a lot of lost history that we know exists but are unable to find as of yet. No one can really draw the kind of conclusions that you are making. And the few that seem to find it of principal importance seem to have some kind of anti-semitic agenda in being able to supposedly then "out" the "imposter jews" or something.

By the way. You've got a lot of nerve to be making assumptions like this based on what appears to be a cursury reading of some crackpot websites. Your post serves as a pretty good example of the fact that the folks who try to define Judaism as a race almost always do so to try and prove some kind of negative stereotype or theory.

I couldn't see the videos, but I'm assuming that the description is accurate. Knowing what Hebron's settlers are like I don't doubt it.

My issue with what you said is that you're focusing on the most severely right wing extremists out there and using them as a benchmark for all of Zionism. I don't think that anyone ever said that there weren't racist Zionists or even that there are no factions of discriminatory Zionists lobbying the government.

I mean, come on! You're using video of settlers in Hebron as a symbol of all Israelis. Certainly the 400 people living in Hebron are bat# insane. Most Israeli's will agree with you there.

And using the pro-Israeli comments as further evidence is really non-sensical. You are asking me to look at a webpage depicting gross, racist behaviour and then saying that the comments defending that behaviour is also racist and despicable. Well, duh! It may be more informative to look at ALL of the comments. Even then, I would hesitate to say that you're going to get a clear picture of anything from that.

If I sent you to a site with images of neo-nazis beating up a black kid I can assure you that the comments defending the neo-nazis would themselves be predjudicial. It would be quite nuts though to then use that as evidence that Christians hate blacks. Or that whites hate blacks. Or that people wearing boots hate blacks.

The fact of the matter is that you've got all kinds of Zionists. All the folks at PeaceNow? Zionists. Rabin? Zionist. Just about every Israeli except for the ultra-religious? Zionists all. Zionism in and of itself is no more racist than the movement to autonomize Tibet.

You can go to pro-Israel sites and rarely if ever see footage like this being held up as positive. (Except maybe the most right-wing, KKK equivalent fringe groups.) On the other hand though, it is easy to find footage that glorifies the killing of Israeli civilians. And I think it is important to notice the difference between how these societies react to events like these. When you hear about some Palestinian children being accidentally hit by stray gunfire you never, ever see Israelis out in the street celebrating and passing out candy. Not so vice-versa.

Another thing. While you clearly thought that all of the comments were themselves really racist, seeing as how the events took place in Hebron it does add another layer of complexity to it. What are your views on Hebron, Pieman? To what nation should it belong and why?