State Dept.'s Anti-semitism Report

[gamavor]

To be perfectly honest, the Jews seldom refer to "Armageddon" in the context of the "final war", the destruction of the globe, and the "Second Coming" as those fundamentalist idiots do. Why would they?

 

Quite understandable! No one is crazy enough to propagate Armageddon, especially if your father is a banker!

[Anonymouse]

Exactly vava. And I have no interest in getting into this discusion further with anyone here who just doesn't get it. IMO those who are so focused on putting down the Jews at every oppurtunity are shameful Armenians and shameful people. Certainly Jewish groups and Israel often act in ways that deserve condemnation - etc - and I have no problem doing so (funny but I've been called anti-Semetic and have been shunned by a Jewish in-law of mine for positions I have taken regarding Israel & Palestinians etc - we didn't talk for almost 2 years and I refused to apologize for my comments - creating a big family rift - and what a joke to call me anti-semetic - lol) - but this isn't the point - the issue is people having what is for the most part an irrational hatred of Jews - and this exists and has existed in western society for milenia - its a real phenomona - and it goes beyond the various ethnic hatreds that exist all over). For the most part they are just people like eveyone else - and in fact share much in terms of culture/attitudes and various with Armenians - so think about that a bit when you imediatly jump on the anti-Jew bandwagon. Get over it already. Try to be just a bit enlightened for once in yoru life. (and I have absolutly no interest in hearing ant-Jewish diatribes - what a waste of time & energy - OK - "they" killed Christ - etc - get over it already - oh and those Jews aren't the same as these Jews - etc etc - but you can conviently lump them all together when it comes time to spew racism and hate...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes, for once you have made sense. Jews are not Hebrews and anyone who confuses them as such is ignorant of history as well as theology because Jews are not Hebrews. They are not the Pharisees. They are not the Israelites. They are Jews, the followers of a religion, Judaism, which did not exist back then. Many Jews in fact are descended from Europe, specifically Asiatic-Caucasian stock, Khazars ( Ashkenazim ) and if we are to believe Alfred M. Lilienthal, Arthur Koestler, and Benjamin Freedman, they have no connection whatsover to the historical people who were the Hebrews known as the Pharisees following what Freedman referred to as "Talmudism".

 

For the most part the global anti-Semitism report is rubbish and is nothing more than efforts of a few Zionists who have hijacked the American government and use it for their purposes ( such as the case for the Iraq war www.nowarforisrael.com ). Aside from that the issue of anti-Semitism is simply beat into us constantly year round, I am tired of hearing about that and the Holocaust. Enough about Jews as eternal victims and lets see how anti-Semitic Jews are regarding other Semites because yes, Arabs are Semites and both are descendents of Shem, and speak a Semetic language according to the Bible. Such is not 'hatred' contrary to what you mistakenly believe. Such is what we call observation of facts. You do not have to like it.

Edited January 17, 2005 by Anonymouse

[Stormig]

What poppy-cock.

[Nakharar]

Yes, for once you have made sense. Jews are not Hebrews and anyone who confuses them as such is ignorant of history as well as theology because Jews are not Hebrews. They are not the Pharisees. They are not the Israelites. They are Jews, the followers of a religion, Judaism, which did not exist back then. Many Jews in fact are descended from Europe, specifically Asiatic-Caucasian stock, Khazars ( Ashkenazim ) and if we are to believe Alfred M. Lilienthal, Arthur Koestler, and Benjamin Freedman, they have no connection whatsover to the historical people who were the Hebrews known as the Pharisees following what Freedman referred to as "Talmudism".

 

For the most part the global anti-Semitism report is rubbish and is nothing more than efforts of a few Zionists who have hijacked the American government and use it for their purposes ( such as the case for the Iraq war www.nowarforisrael.com ). Aside from that the issue of anti-Semitism is simply beat into us constantly year round, I am tired of hearing about that and the Holocaust. Enough about Jews as eternal victims and lets see how anti-Semitic Jews are regarding other Semites because yes, Arabs are Semites and both are descendents of Shem, and speak a Semetic language according to the Bible. Such is not 'hatred' contrary to what you mistakenly believe. Such is what we call observation of facts. You do not have to like it.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Excellent post. And right to the point. Especially considering that the Israeli government is pointing fingers at everybody which it deems a threat. What better way is there than to engage in a proxy war through the Americans without shedding one drop of blood. With the added bonus of getting rid of their enemies real or imagined. The Israeli Foreign minister is one such instigator (and happens to be an Iraqi Kurd) who constantly raises the Iranian and Syrian "threat" to regional security. The hypocrisy makes me sick, but then such is the world we are living in.

[Nakharar]

What poppy-cock.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The truth stinks.

[Armen]

I find it funny that the people who most brush off the idea that there is anti-semitsim are the ones who are always the most obviously anti-semetic. (and this arabs are semites thing is pitiful - so what if they are - its clear that the issue is hatred of Jews - and it exists - and its pretty sad/sick - IMO (regardless) - and particualry comming from Armenians who have had similar done to them.....most sad....

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Thoth, don't you think Jews have to hang their head in shame and say sorry to Armenians after what happened in Jerusalem? And yet they make references to the State departments report and say that they're surprised! Give me a break...

[gamavor]

The Anti-Semitic Reports issued yearly by the State Department are outright racist!

 

I never heard of any Anti-Balkan, Anti-Tutsi, Anti-Russian or Anti-Asian reports issued by this very Department.

 

I just wonder if Hitler had succseeded in exterminating the Jews what Anti-? reports should have the State Department issue?

[Arpa]

The Anti-Semitic Reports issued yearly by the State Department are outright racist!

 

I never heard of any Anti-Balkan, Anti-Tutsi, Anti-Russian or Anti-Asian reports issued by this very Department.

 

I just wonder if Hitler had succseeded in exterminating the Jews what Anti-? reports should have the State Department issue?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Anti-Semitic?

My big fat Armenian VORIK!! Why are there not terms to describe anti-Armenian, anti-Arab, anti-Christian feelings, or anti (A to Z), anti-American and anti-Zulu? Or are those faex populi the only (f***** chosen) people?

Edited January 17, 2005 by Arpa

[Anonymouse]

The Anti-Semitic Reports issued yearly by the State Department are outright racist!

 

I never heard of any Anti-Balkan, Anti-Tutsi, Anti-Russian or Anti-Asian reports issued by this very Department.

 

I just wonder if Hitler had succseeded in exterminating the Jews what Anti-? reports should have the State Department issue?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes, indeed why doesn't the State Department engage in more anti-[insert other ethnic identity group name] reports? In fact, why are Jews the "chosen people"? Says who?

[skhara]

The above commentaries are very encouraging. It gives me hope for the future.

[Nakharar]

This is even more encouraging. Here is an article by Immanuel Wallerstein who is a Professor for International Law at Yale University.

 

 

 

 

Commentary No. 148, November 1, 2004

 

"The Middle East Cauldron - The Next Five Years"

 

 

 

Whoever is President of the United States, the basic political dilemmas of the Middle East will be the same in the coming five years. There are three loci of crucial happenings and probable major shifts in the coming period: Iraq, Iran, and Israel/Palestine.

 

The issue in Iraq that will have most impact on the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and the world is when and under what circumstances U.S. military forces will quit the country. At this point, the U.S. military presence has come to be a surgical graft that the Iraqi body is rejecting, and rejecting definitively. Sooner or later, U.S. forces will have to leave entirely, including from the prospective permanent bases. There are only three manners in which U.S. withdrawal can take place: as an early autonomous decision of the U.S. government; at the later request of the Iraqi authorities; or ultimately chased by Iraqi insurgents.

 

The first alternative is undoubtedly the one which would serve U.S., Iraqi, and world interests best. It is also the least likely to occur. The U.S. president will find this impossible politically to do in 2005 or 2006 because it would be interpreted, first of all at home in the United States, as a major political defeat for the United States. And it would be. Antiwar sentiment in the United States is growing, but it is not yet at the point where members of Congress would willingly endorse such a move. Even those in the military who think the entire Iraqi invasion was a grave error would regard withdrawal now as a slap in the face of the U.S. military. And those leaders in other countries who have backed the U.S. fully - Blair, Berlusconi, Howard - would equally be dismayed, because it would have very negative political consequences for them in their countries.

 

The second alternative - being asked to withdraw by the Iraqi government - is more plausible. Of course, it depends to some extent on political developments within Iraq. The elections of January may well take place, even if participation in many areas will be fitful or even virtually nonexistent. The elections are likely to take place because a number of important actors are at the moment committed to them: the U.S. government; the interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi; the Kurdish leaders; and Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, who sees the opportunity for a legislature dominated by religious Shia.

 

But this does not ensure a legitimate regime after January. For one thing, if the U.S. forces go into Fallujah, as they seem to intend to do, not only will this guarantee Sunni non-participation in the elections but it threatens to ignite new eruptions in Shia areas, now that Moqtada al-Sadr has committed himself to full support of Fallujah resistance. And if, despite such eruptions, the elections take place, it is by no means clear whether Allawi would be able to consolidate his control of the central government or would be displaced by a figure closer to al-Sistani and less dependent on the United States.

 

But whatever the makeup of the Iraqi government in 2005, its prime and most immediate concern will be to secure popular support and legitimation. What can such a government offer a population that is unhappy with American military presence, massively insecure because of the insurgency and the U.S. response, and in great economic difficulty? Such a government will have only two choices: moving much closer to the U.S. proconsul and his military forces, or distancing itself considerably from them.

 

Closeness has not paid off thus far, either in deepening legitimacy or in getting significant material support from the U.S. It follows that, at some point, the likelihood is that the Iraqi government will turn against the U.S. They will certainly be encouraged to do so, for different reasons, by all their neighbors - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran. Even if they have deep reservations about each of these neighbors and their governments, the pressures coming from them plus the pressures coming from their populations plus the undoubtedly erratic behavior of the United States will probably be enough for the Iraqi government to shift its basic position vis-a-vis the United States.

 

But if they don't, because they fear an inability to survive without U.S. military support, then it will be the insurgency that will grow stronger and stronger, and become the de facto government of the country. When that happens, Iraq is headed towards a Tet offensive scenario. And the U.S. may have to evacuate its personnel from the Green Zone in helicopters. This will be a far greater defeat than autonomous withdrawal in 2005.

 

Meanwhile, in Iran, the government will join the nuclear club in this same period. Iran is a major power in the region, heir to a very ancient civilization, a Shia state beside a largely Sunni Arab world, a country surrounded by nuclear powers. It needs nuclear weapons to realize its full weight as a regional power, and it will do what it takes to get them. It has three obstacles in its path. The most public is the opposition of the U.S. and the European Union to this breakdown in observance of the non-proliferation treaty. This is the most public and the least important obstacle, since in fact neither the U.S. nor the EU can do very much to stop Iran.

 

There are two more serious obstacles. The first derives from Iran's internal politics. The government in power has been losing popular support and legitimacy for more than a decade because of its repressive and fundamentalist politics. It is not that the opposition forces would really be against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons but rather that, should they be able to create turmoil, the government might not have the energy to move forward on the nuclear front. However, at this point, the opposition seems too weak politically to disrupt, and the government's strong stand on nuclear weapons would probably be a popular move at home.

 

The third and most serious obstacle is the Israeli threat to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. There is little doubt that the Israeli government would like to do that. There are however three questions about an Israeli attack. Can Israel do it in such a way that the attack would really cripple Iranian capacity? Can the Iranians retaliate in such a way that Israel would really be hurt? And would world (including U.S.) opinion swallow such an attack as they did the Israeli bombing of Iraq in 1981, or would they react by turning Israel into a total pariah state?

 

I doubt Israel can cripple Iran because I believe that Iran has scattered its facilities already enough to prevent this. I also doubt that the Iranians could retaliate with sufficient strength to hurt Israel seriously. But the weak point for Israel is world opinion. Israel has already lost a lot of legitimacy in the last four years, and this could be the last straw. The world's geopolitics are quite different today than in 1981. The lesson of South Africa is that it is politically extremely difficult to survive as a pariah state.

 

Finally, there is Israel/Palestine. Israel has tied its fate to that of the United States in the Middle East. A defeat for the United States is a defeat for Israel. At the moment, Sharon is trying the ploy of a unilateral Gaza withdrawal which would enable him effectively to foreclose a meaningful Palestinian state on the West Bank. But it doesn't seem to be working. Hamas is unalterably hostile and unappeased. And the Palestine Authority, which might have been willing to negotiate such an arrangement, has been excluded from its implementation, and therefore has to be ultra-reserved as well. In any case, Arafat may well die soon, and once that happens, the PLO may splinter into many parts, to the probable benefit of Hamas.

 

Meanwhile, among the Israelis, the refusal of the right-wing settlers to envisage even this tiny concession has led to a virtual split in the Likud party, and an implicit threat of total implosion of the Jewish state. Gaza withdrawal will never really come about. But in the process of trying to do it, Sharon might reunite the Palestinians and fatefully divide the Israeli body politic in ways that have never occurred up to now. And this division among the Israelis themselves might be the final blow to their political strength within the United States. Israel/Palestine might finally lose its status as an untouchable U.S. political issue and become a matter of public debate within the United States. This would bode ill for Israel's survival.

 

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[Anonymouse]

In either case this century is going to make or break empires and change the world in ways none of us can imagine.

[Armen]

In either case this century is going to make or break empires and change the world in ways none of us can imagine.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I agree. Everyone should start learning Chinese. They're the next...

[Anonymouse]

I agree. Everyone should start learning Chinese. They're the next...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Precisely, better at least learn the script if not the language.

[skhara]

Cheney Criticized for Attire at Auschwitz Ceremony

 

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050127/capt.aus11701271522.poland_auschwitz_anniversary_aus117.jpg

 

He looks like such a dumbass.

Edited January 30, 2005 by skhara

[Armen]

It is interesting how Brits and Americans can display anti-Semitism (like royal offspring Henry) or utmost disrespect towards Holocost victims (like Chenney) and nothing big will happen. Criticism, some mumbling etc.

[skhara]

It is interesting how Brits and Americans can display anti-Semitism (like royal offspring Henry)

 

The only way one can display 'anti-semetism' is to oppose, resist, and critisize Jewish supremecism.

 

or utmost disrespect towards Holocost victims (like Chenney) and nothing big will happen. Criticism, some mumbling etc.

 

I like how you spelled that. I hope it was on purpose.

Edited February 1, 2005 by skhara

[Anonymouse]

I recommend Alexander Cockburn's "The Politics of Anti-Semitism". Excellent book.

[hagopn]

Still, after all this intelligent dialog, and there was very well written material (such as the epilog by Anonymouse above and other posts he made), the conclusion on my part is Armenians on Armenian forums avoid saying the most obvious: There is no such thing as "Armenian anti-semitism." There is, however, a reaction to Jewry's (if not the general Jewish population's) anti-Armenianism; Refer to post http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=46982&p=315414