^ I believe most of what you're referring to was indeed lost in the translation. I tried to do my best to keep the spirit of it intact, but alas.

The paragraph gwiz665 quoted makes sense (to me, anyway) since this is an Israeli author writing to Israeli readers. To me, the analogy is far far away from Fox News' America-can-do-no-wrong mentality (Under Bush, obviously. Now it's the America-is-being-ruled-by-the-antichrist Fox), and so much closer to Bill Maher's rants about what's wrong with the country, and how to improve it. It's not treason to point out where you are weak, and it's not patriotism to hide it.

The main message I took from this article, is that Israel has to do a better job of communicating with the rest of the world. We spent so long feeling paranoid and alone that we do it automatically now, without thinking. Calling antisemitism against every single piece of criticism against us takes the meaning out of the word.

I heard in a news summary on the radio a while back, that the Israeli government approved construction of new houses in west bank settlements, immediately after promising to freeze construction. The only thought that came to mind was "Hey, it works for Iran, no?". Only after, it struck me, how utterly ridiculous we must sound, denouncing Iran's stall tactics regarding their nuclear program while at the same time using the same tactics with our settlements.

So anyway, Israel needs to care more about how the world views us, and to move in that direction. That's the spirit of the column, for me anyway

The protocols were essentially just taking the most common and grandest of conspiracy theories and putting it all on the Jews. Total nonsense. I'm not saying those protocols weren't used by anyone else, but ascribing them solely to the Jews is a nonsensical labeling.. borne out of antisemitism.

Fortunately not only has it not yet learned to right itself, it also has not yet learned that when it wants something that it can't do, the best course of action is to bark itself silly.

>> ^ant:
Read the comment on YouTube.

This is why I love the internet: the second comment from the top on the YT pages starts "don use 'christian' to defend ur point." How could the discussion possibly have ended up there? Although astoundingly, I saw neither antisemitism nor homophobia on the first page.

In all fairness saying that Jews didn't die in the holocaust based of of the evidence is not antisemitism.

this guy might be a racist ore whatever in reality i don't know.but from this video you cannot know and everything he says in this video is fine, if in fact you cannot prove that there were any gas chambers then that's not racism to say people were not gassed. you would have to check the sources he sights and then present to him sources that prove otherwise , in fact the interviewer dose a disservice to the audience in not actually presenting counter evidence.

What i think is sad regardless of who died and in what numbers the fact is that a bunch of people were killed. I don't see why its important if it was Jews ore not, u don't need to know and in realty alot of gays disabled and many other people died so who cares.

U don't need to know in order to avoid killing people in the future and repeating history as any idiot knows its not good to kill people/groups of people for whatever reason.

As a general sentiment, Those who lead and make decisions in our world, come from a generation where their ideals, and prejudices - are no longer relevant.

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Anti-Muslim, Antisemitism, Nationalism, Communism, Capitalism, Political Correctness, Anti-Political correctness.

They're all failed 20th century beliefs and concepts.

They just aren't relevant to the next generation growing up in the globalized commercial world.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
The point is that in any case, its all OPINIONS, just like "Allah Ackbar, All infidels are dirt" is an opinion. Both may be good or bad or disgusting, depending on who hears them, but they shouldn't be illegal.

In January 2009 a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to try him for making anti-Islamic statements. "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

There is already a mass momentum in Europe by certain politicians that are using the foreign immigrants as a scape goat for social ills so they can incite fear and panic in the voting public. Wilders just targeted Muslims instead, or rather Morrocans and Algerians as a whole. I see this move as a way to stop his BS spilling over in Netherlands. The Netherlands has strict laws against such actions for all religions including Christianity and Judaism.

Also did we watch the same film? Fitna is constructed to be a hate piece against all Muslims. Not extremists. Not fundamentalists. Not cultural Muslims. But all Muslims. It doesn't seek to create any form of dialog, but it just wants to create fear and completely mis represent the largest single faith in the world.

Fitna wishes to demonstrate that the Qur'an, and the Islamic culture in general, motivates its followers to hate all who violate the Islamic teachings. Is this true for all Muslims living in Europe or the Netherlands?

Consequently, the film argues, Islam encourages, among others, acts of terrorism, antisemitism, violence against women, and Islamic universalism. Is this true for all Muslims living in Europe or the Netherlands?

Then it connects it back to Islam in Netherlands. The movie ends with a hand seen gripping a page of the Qur'an and a call to action from Wilders to defeat “Islamic ideology”, likening it to Communism and Nazism. I mean please is this for real?

How can you say that it is simply freedom of expression. It's not, its politically motivated to create division and sew fear in the general public against another set of people based around a religion.

You want to go rattle sabres about freedom of expression in Europe go publish anything that denies the holocaust, or print Mein Kampf (also banned in Netherlands), or make any kind of Nazi related object in Germany.

Will you go also defending freedom of expression then?

He makes his argument very well, I have to give him that.

I also don't see the connection between Holocaust-denial and antisemitism. Not believing the Holocaust happened may make you a lot of things (crazy, stupid, ignorant) but it doesn't mean you hate the Jews.

It doesn't sound like he's actually a Holocaust denier as much as he just doesn't believe it happened the way we've all been taught.

That would be true if Hamas solely sold terrorism and a fight against occupation, but Hamas also provide social services for the people of Palestine and has constructed schools and hospitals to achive this aim. From Wiki:

Hamas also runs extensive social programs and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas' charter calls for the recapturing of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now named Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious or antisemitic. However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Hamas's political wing has won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43. Many perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas's supporters see it as an "armed resistance" movement defending Palestinians from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. However, since Hamas's election victory, particularly sharp infighting has occurred between Hamas and Fatah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

>> ^HollywoodBob:
Jews and Muslims were living in Palestine just fine until antisemitism in Europe drove the Jews out, and they began mass migration back to "THE HOLY LAND" where there was only minor conflicts, street fights, riots, much like you'd see in any major city with large immigrant populations. It wasn't until after WW2 that the violence escalated to the levels we continue to see today.
The Jews wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for their religious beliefs, so claiming religion isn't the cause is just stupid. It's one of the worse places to try and sustain a populace, there's very little arable land to grow crops and livestock on, the only reason to be there is the religious significance of the area.


Religious significance was only a small part of the reason to be there. Nazi's where a big reason to rule out all of Europe. That there was a lot of available land in Palestine and an existing Jewish population made it appealing on a practical level as well, and I'd dare say if the religious homeland of the Jews happened to be Berlin, they'd have still immigrated away to Palestine through WW2.

I would never say religion isn't a big factor, but I generally believe that practicality and convenience drives religious interpretation as much or more than the other way around.

Jews and Muslims were living in Palestine just fine until antisemitism in Europe drove the Jews out, and they began mass migration back to "THE HOLY LAND" where there was only minor conflicts, street fights, riots, much like you'd see in any major city with large immigrant populations. It wasn't until after WW2 that the violence escalated to the levels we continue to see today.

The Jews wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for their religious beliefs, so claiming religion isn't the cause is just stupid. It's one of the worse places to try and sustain a populace, there's very little arable land to grow crops and livestock on, the only reason to be there is the religious significance of the area.

AFP is an antisemitic bunch of lunatics that blames 9/11 on the Jews. And really, what is Obama supposed to do?

Of course he's avoiding the question. From his ignorant "academicist" point of view the only way justify his opinion is to deny the Holocaust, because without it Israel has no reason for being.

You don't have to be a holocaust denier or antisemitic to be anti-Israel. Just look at anti-zionist Jews.

The problem is that the damage was done 60 years ago, Israel is a nation, and the Palestinians lost their country and their home. But until both sides realize that the only solution is to share, the fighting will continue. It would help though if the rest of the nations would stop pretending that the Israelis are the only victims here.

>> ^theali:
Just listen to 5:40 on going, and tell me what is wrong with the argument he is making.

It's not fashionable. It's been 60 years since the creation of Israel, and no one wants to admit that the UN made a mistake in dividing the country. Jews in Palestine was nothing new, in the 40's they'd been living there (albeit in smaller numbers) for hundreds of years, peacefully I might add. But as antisemitism grew in Europe and more and more Jews left for Palestine, that's when the conflicts began, but much of those early conflicts were similar to conflicts anywhere you have a large immigrant population, they were over resources and jobs, not who gets what holy land.

wait, what? Rev. Wright is antisemitic?

I'm pro-Palestine in a general way, because I think they're getting shit on right now... that makes me antisemitic?

Antisemitism was definitely influenced by Christianity. Jews who refused to convert to Christianity were mistreated by the Catholic establishment throughout the dark ages.

Martin Luther, father of protestant Christianity, wrote On The Jews And Their Lies which was a major influence on Hitler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#Ancient

But your Grandma who goes to a bland church every Sunday had nothing to do with it.