Now that the name calling is out of the way, I’ll just say that I reject any definition of anti-Semitism which leaves no room for criticism of the state of Israel. I have no problem or special animus for Jews or even the majority of Israelis. However, I do have a problem with the actions of the Israeli government.

I’m disappointed, although not surprised, that you’ve resorted to this line of argument. Congratulations.

Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

*

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
*

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
* Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

*Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
*Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
* Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

*Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor

*Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

*Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

*Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

*Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.</blockquote

Statements by ChrisWWW:

It’s all okay though, because your culture that allows that is superior.Qassam rockets are not an existential threat to Israel these rockets they can make in their kitchens? Why did the kid do that? [i.e., commit mass murder by suicide]There are similar feelings on both sides. [I.e., government-sponsored hate sessions, hate propaganda, etc etc]How is apartheid not an accurate term at this point?Technically that’s true, but you’re completely ignoring the nature of these offers. So you’re not lying, just being misleading. [I.e., believing that Palestinians have never been truly offered self-determination because of Israeli double-dealing]They should of course give that language up… [I.e., government incitement to hatred; Jews are sons of apes and pigs; Jews make matzo balls out of blood extracted from pubescent Muslims]

Does he “justify the killing or harming of Jews?” E.g., kitchen-made rockets; no existential threat; implying that the suicide mass-murderers have a reason that would explain their crimes.

Does he say or imply that Israelis are racist? e.g., the “apartheid” comments, comment #1, above etc etc.

Does he apply double standards? E.g., by blaming Israel for the violence and placing the burden for a solution on Israel alone, e.g., by holding the 60 Minutes broadcast up as “I urge you to watch this excellent 60 Minutes report on the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Along with walls and roadblocks, the settlements are making life for the Palestinians unbearable and decreasing the likelihood of a two state solution.”

Opposition to the idea that separation is racially MOTIVATED is very simple, and it starts by pointing out that Israelis are interested in security, not racial purity. We can have a lengthy discussion over whether the measures they have taken are creating a more secure future. But the idea that Israel has cordoned off certain roads in the West Bank because it believes Palestinians are racially inferior is ridiculous. It requires completely ignoring the give and take of the last six decades of history between the two peoples.

As for your US example. In certain places in Israel (Akko, Nazareth) it stacks up, in others (Haifa, Tel Aviv) it does not. But I’m not suggesting that Israel is a racism-free country. On the contrary. Israelis are at times very troublingly racist, the product of violence that has gone on too long. But under apartheid (and in the US during slavery, for that matter) the racism was government-sponsored. There is no such thing against Israeli Arabs, end of story. They have three parties in parliament, full rights as citizens, and are portrayed positively in Israeli popular culture on a regular basis, from Israeli Sesame Street to sitcoms, etc.

As for Palestinian Arabs, return to step 1 of this argument. There is obviously a huge difference between the lives of these two groups, despite common ethnicity. But again, my point is to say that the difference in their lives tells you something about what the Israelis care about. Right or wrong, they perceive Palestinians as a security threat, not a racial problem.

Again, I’m not sure how you avoid calling the situation apartheid, even when there is a significant Arab Israeli population (There are currently 1.5 million Arab Israelis and somewhere around 4 million Palestinians living in the occupied territories). I don’t think anyone would make the claim that the US wasn’t a slavery or segregation nation even though blacks were treated relatively well in some parts of the country (the North) and legally segregated or enslaved in others (the South).

You’re opposed to the idea that it’s racially motivated, but how can you avoid that conclusion? There are Jewish settlers living outside the wall in the West Bank, and they are treated in a completely different manner than the Palestinians who live in the same area.

In a binational state, if that state were the result of too much status quo, I think full-on apartheid would be something that we would see. I just wrote about it the other day here: http://somepolitical.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-numbers-on-two-state.html
Regarding continued Israeli refusal to abandon the settlement project, and the inevitable binational state that would be produced: “At a certain point in the (ever-nearing) future, Israelis are going to have a national decision to make with regard to their indigenous Palestinian population. Extend them the rights of citizenship, ethnically cleanse them, or just go full-Apartheid? This is not an imaginary scenario.”

We are on the same page when it comes to the consequences of this behavior. But ‘apartheid’ as a racial word is also a stick with which many people beat Israel over the head, whether it fits or not.

I’m no apartheid expert, but one reason it doesn’t seem like an accurate comparison to me is the Israeli Arab population, which enjoys full rights in territorial Israel. Life in the West Bank is far from pleasant, but to argue that it is racially motivated seems to require that you ignore the well-being of the many Arabs who have Israeli citizenship.

ED: Obviously, a nuclear attack would be more likely in Tel Aviv than Jerusalem. But if you’re really asking, then yes, I do personally believe that there are many radical Muslims willing to blow up Jerusalem in order to destabilize Israel.

So… the solution to the problem involves more Colonialism?

So, put up about your “both sides” canard, or shut up.
The Israeli settlement population is hardline, partly out of necessity, and not insignificant in size.

I would venture to say that most Israelis and Palestinians just want to get on with their lives. Of course Israelis can pretty much already do that.

They were offered it in 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2001.
Technically that’s true, but you’re completely ignoring the nature of these offers. So you’re not lying, just being misleading :-)

The “corresponding move” is to give up their illegitimate demands for the extermination of the Jewish state.
They should of course give that language up, but it’s going to be the result of the peace process moving forward. It’s not going to work as a prerequisite to negotations. After all, the Palestinians can just as easily say that Israel does not recognize Palestine’s right to exist and so on.

I actually agree with Jaybird’s solution, as much as he enjoys being facetious, which is to absorb the WB into Jordan.
But Palestinians aren’t Jordanians or Egyptians (especially after these years of radicalization under occupation), and those countries don’t want to be responsible for millions of what are essentially refugees. Israel might be able to pull it off if they open their treasury to Egypt and Jordan to help take care of the Palestinians.