Centerfield

I've heard a good bit of actual anti-semitism in my day -- e.g., people with hate-filled and stereotype-driven views of Jews.

I went to school at American University, which has a large number of international students, and a couple of my good friends were from Middle Eastern countries. I got a feel for what is sometimes said at unguarded moments.

I don't mean to suggest that all Arabs see it that way -- I know that's not the case. But it does seem to be out there.

I agree with William that there's a fair amount of those sorts of attitudes out there. It was not to long ago when I'd sit around the sunday dinner table as a young adult and the talk among my parents generation would turn to how bad the niggers had gotten in Hyde Park or Roxbury or wherever. And I spent enough time as a young adult working in the blue-collar male subculture to learn that this was still talked about in these circles once it was ascertained that you were "among friends. " So I have no doubt it's out there, and if you're not aware of it, it may well to have to do with not having much exposure to the places where it thrives.

That said, I agree with the substance of Jon's comments regarding inflexibility on both sides. Israel has given Palestinians litle reason to hope they'll be given sovereignty, and most arab nations have given Israel little genuine reason to believe that they're truly willing to co-exist peacefully with a Jewish state.

There are a great many parties to share blame for the violent acts that helped to form the state of Israel, not the least of whom are the European nations which have embraced the anti-zionist sentiment that you describe. Also contributing mightily were terrorist acts perpetrated on Israelis at a time when Jewish anger about the holocaust was likely to provoke a violent reaction to anti-Semitic violence. Question: why do you not mention Arab attacks on civilian targets that occurred in 1947-48? Certainly their aim was to accomplish an ethnic cleansing, no?

As for the settlements, I understand they are in contravention of international law. However, it is hard for me to harbor any sympathy for the Palestinians when the presence of the settlers would mean little in their daily lives if they could but restrain themselves from slaughtering them because they are Jews. Some settlers wish to make a political statement by living in settlements, most simply want to live in areas that have religious and cultural meaning to them (for example, settlers in Hebron wish to live near the tomb of the patriarchs). Do you believe that it is right that certain areas in the Middle East should be "Jew-free zones"?

Peace prolly can't happen until Palis have free speech, and can have Pali newspapers that criticize Arafat, or whoever replaces him. -- because there can't be real democracy w/o a free press. Right now, any Palis who disagree get mugged, or worse.

On my long blog post, Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate
I conclude:

These hates are connected, though not identical. It may well be that merchant success, and hatred against money grubbing merchants, predates anti-Jewish feeling, but both have existed far longer than the current calendar. It's clear that envy, destructive envy, drives those who hate. Bush hate follows Reagan hate and Nixon hate, and its bastard brother Clinton hate (on the Right). The Left has chosen between support for regime change of a dictator, or hate for the President who leads a successful regime change, & supports successful capitalism. The Left has chosen hate. Bush hate, Jew hate, money grubbing hate. A victory of envy.

There isn't much anti-Semitism in the United States that actually harms Jews health or welfare, but for a shocking anecdote about an anti-semitic nurse in Brooklyn in charge of the care of a Jewish patient, see my Smart Genes post

On the other hand, in the Muslim world, anti-Semitism is rife and growing. While it is inspired by hatred of Israel, few in the Muslim countries make distinctions between Israel and "the Jews" The recent bombing of a Turkish synagogue is emblematic of this.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20031115/ts_nm/security_turkey_dc

The state of Israel was created as a refuge for Jews who were survivors of the "ethnic cleansing" in Europe. Subsequent to its creation, most Arab states except for Morocco cleansed themselves of Jews. There was a tremendous amount of population exchange in the aftermath of World War II, including the cleansing of Germans from Eastern Europe. All refugee populations from that period have been resettled, with the exception of the Palestinian refugees, who were not been absorbed by other Arab countries, because that would be tantamount to accepting the continued existence of Israel.

All that being said, the Israeli settlements need to stop, and some need to be evacuated as part of a peace plan. However, the settlements are NOT the fundamental cause of the conflict. The fundamental cause of the conflict is the Arabs continued rejection of the existence of a state where Jews can live in safety.

Rick,

If you are biblically oriented, the fundamental causes of the arab/jewish conflicts goes much further back than the existance of a Jewish state. It goes all the way back to Abraham, the "father" of both arabs and jews.

As noted by Jon, ethnic cleansing isn't limited to just the jews and arabs either. Ever since the end of the Cold War and the deconstruction of the Soviet Union, most of the conflicts in the world seem to be related to ethnic/religious cleansing -- in Kosovo, Africa, India and Pakistan, even in Iraq with the Kurds.

Ethnic cleansing isn't anything new, either -- after all, our country did it to the American Indians. And then there were the Crusades...

I'm not sure what it would take to end prejudice especially since it continues to be so pervasive even in the most open and tolerant societies.

Ron C wondered:
> Question: why do you not mention Arab attacks on civilian targets that occurred in 1947-48?

...because it's beyond the scope of what I was talking about. I'm mostly trying to analyze the present, and so I only wanted to include the most minimal setup for that.

> As for the settlements, I understand they are in contravention of
> international law. However, it is hard for me to harbor any sympathy
> for the Palestinians when the presence of the settlers would mean
> little in their daily lives if they could but restrain themselves from
> slaughtering them because they are Jews.

Good question. Right after I posted, I realized that there was a serious gap in my arguments. I simply asserted without explanation that:

... as we see Israel today using many of the same tactics as the
United States used to ethnically cleanse American Indians from most
of North America. ...

One strategy the US used to keep the American Indian frontiers receding in the 19th century was a pattern of, er, advancing settlement-and-conflict (sound familiar?). People would found settlements in Indian territory and defend them. When settlements were attacked, state militias and even the US Army would respond. Effectively, territorial boundaries moved with the advancing line of settlement. Imagine if Americans founded a village in Mexico, were attacked by Mexican forces, and then defended by the US Army. Not only would this be a border violation, but if this continued as a long pattern, the Mexican border would slowly creep back, eventually creating a majority of Americans in this area. That would effectively be ethnic cleansing.

Israeli settlements are encouraged economically by the government, defended by the Israeli Army, and they are slowly creeping forward indefinitely. Note that to do this (especially for a democracy), you have to feel that the country you are encroaching on and its people are somehow inferior and undeserving of equal treatment.

> ... most [settlers] simply want to live in areas that have religious
> and cultural meaning to them

The settlers' reasons are surely often innocent. It may be as simple as the government subsidies. But their goverment is completely culpable in this. Israelis collectively share the level of guilt that any democratic people shares for its government's ill actions.

I'm almost persuaded, but why does it have to be a cowboy and indian situation? The relationship between the two peoples is not the clash of cultures and disparate technology that was Europe to Natives. Both peoples have lived there for centuries. The settlers could live as Palestinian citizens if there was any Palestinian government that would protect them. They could also maybe have a shot at an economy and jobs so these people don't have to live like in abject poverty.

> I'm almost persuaded, but why does it have to be a cowboy and indian situation?

Go to the Israelis and Palestinians and ask them. They set the rules, not me. If I were Grand Poobah of the PA, I would send in police to protect Israeli immigrants and expect some nice tax revenues from them. But, for some reason, they never seem to listen to me.

> The relationship between the two peoples is not the clash of cultures
> and disparate technology that was Europe to Natives. Both peoples have
> lived there for centuries.

Most Israelis are recent immigrants or descended from immigrants post-1948. There is a culture clash now. Especially the Israelis have been living with the advantages of a liberal democracy for decades, and the Palestinians largely have not.

> The settlers could live as Palestinian citizens if there was any
> Palestinian government that would protect them.

If an American family were to settle in Mexico without getting the prior permission of the Mexican government, say in a high drug-traffic region, would they deserve governmental protection of any kind?