There are members who criticize Gatestone Institute for publishing FAKE NEWS. As well, they or others indicate that it is Islamophobic, and that Dershowitz, who professes to be a liberal is lying and that he is right wing. Personally I consider Dershowitz to be a paragon of the legal world, formerly a Professor of Law at Harvard whose brilliance IMO should be recognized by appointing him a justice of the SCOTUS.

I hope to see comments about this article by those critics, just to see "whose side they are on".

Dear Friend Buzz: Chief Justice of the SCOTUS for Alan D.

Count on my vote.

Enoch.

I used to have a fair amount of respect for Dershowitz but he changed dramatically after 9/11 and became a truly irrational Islamophobe who has even argued in favor of torture.

Can you please provide credible sources for your opinion?

Ummmm.....Dershowitz has been rather public about his support for torturing terrorism suspects and for denying those suspects even the most basic of civil rights: habeas corpus.

blogs.reuters

hsaj

Please provide a link to tie Dershowitz in with the subject of those articles.

One is a report/discussion concerning administrative detention, and the use of it by the USA, Britain and Israel. It does not argue with the fact that it may well be necessary when constant horrid acts of terrorism are perpetrated against a country. In fact, the USA did not deem it necessary until it got a taste at 9/11 what Israel had been experiencing since its declaration as a State. Britain most likely experienced it by acts taken by the IRA, but by others more recently.

Although I cannot open the other link, could it be concerned with the Islamization of Europe?

If you can't open the links or understand the discussion, that's your problem.    The first link was Dershowitz's own blog where he tries to justify a legal framework enabling torture.    Apparently he's unaware that such things are explicitly prohibited by the Convention Against Torture, a treaty which the US authored.

The second link contains a quote by Dershowitz where he tries to justify Bush's denial of habeas corpus to the Gitmo prisoners he held without charge, many of whom were factually innocent.

Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

Unfortunately certain web sites are blocked where I am, so I have no way of meeting your argument that Dershowitz endorses torture. Perhaps another member can deal with that.

As for the link dealing with administrative detention, I agree with Dershowitz for the reasons I've given and that are outlined in the article, and don't care what you think of me or of anyone else who would rather not see terrorists released into civilized countries, especially where terrorism is an everyday event, and I assume you don't live in Israel.

Unfortunately certain web sites are blocked where I am, so I have no way of meeting your argument that Dershowitz endorses torture. Perhaps another member can deal with that.

As for the link dealing with administrative detention, I agree with Dershowitz for the reasons I've given and that are outlined in the article, and don't care what you think of me or of anyone else who would rather not see terrorists released into civilized countries, especially where terrorism is an everyday event, and I assume you don't live in Israel.

Although I cannot open the link alleging that Dershowitz endorses torture, I hope that another member might dispute your interpretation of what he might have written, or where he might have provided justification, if he did.

As for his comments concerning administrative detention, which happens to be practised by many countries including the USA, it should be done away with if the country wants to allow terrorists to slyly find ways to get around actual criminal conviction, and to allow terrorists to run rampant around your own country.  I take it you do not live in Israel, in fact probably have never spent much time there.

Unfortunately certain web sites are blocked where I am, so I have no way of meeting your argument that Dershowitz endorses torture.

If you're in China they might be filtering out anything with the word "torture" in it, but otherwise feel free to google "Dershowitz and torture"......he's been quite vocal about his odious views even though what he wants is strictly illegal under US and international law.

.

As for the link dealing with administrative detention, I agree with Dershowitz for the reasons I've given and that are outlined in the article

Fortunately SCOTUS slammed both of you down in the Boumediene v Bush ruling.

Since many new things have been loaded onto the NT site, including the expansion of the page, I'm encountering all kinds of problems opening articles, posting comments and especially replies. I thought my first one did not work so I posted this one, not remembering exactly what I said before.  Sorry for all the duplicates.  Although google is banned here, I will seek on another search engine what you suggested.

As for Administrative Detention, fortunately for you you don't live in Israel.  I read the Blitzer debate on torture. Dershowitz took the pro side to make it a debate and not an echo chamber.  His example was that one of the 9/11 terrorists survives and says he know where a bomb is planted that will kill thousands, maybe a million Americans (and in fact he DOES) but refuses to divulge its location.  So you sit back and say, better that a million Americans will die than to contravene the Geneva Conventions (and he made the point that every country does in one way or another, and I think that's true), so there's your ethical hypothetical. He argues that it's better to be open about it and not hypocritical not admitting that you do it, by outsourcing it and not in your own country.

To me, it's a dilemma, but then the argument is meant to be one.  I don't disrespect Dershowitz for arguing that side of the debate.

I don't disrespect Dershowitz for arguing that side of the debate.

Ummm.....the link I cited wasn't Dershowitz taking a position in a debate, it's his public advocacy for legalizing torture.    He's been roundly condemned by human rights groups for his views on these issues.     And the "ticking bomb scenario" is bogus anyway.    Not only has it never happened but no sane interrogator with a time constraint would use a tactic which causes confabulation.    In fact the torture of KSM caused him to falsely confess to over 30 bogus plots.....which the FBI later complained had wasted thousands of man hours trying to verify.

humanrightsfirst

Funny that you were unaware of his odious views......the right wing has proudly trumpeted the fact that Dershowitz supports their pro-torture position.

.

So you sit back and say, better that a million Americans will die than to contravene the Geneva Conventions

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]   But what it does mean is that you have no standing to complain when other countries torture you or your compatriots.

On further thinking about Dershowitz's position, I came to the realization that he was opposed to hypocrisy. What he was saying is that America says it complies with conventions about torture, (but we OUTSOURCE it, so we are being hypocrites).  Dershowitz is saying that rather than being a hypocrite and outsourcing it to somewhere where you do not have control over it, better to NOT be a hypocrite and legalize it with extremely stringent controls. He indicated what they were. Use it only if the circumstances are extreme and that extreme massacre of human life would occur, use it only with a careful and precise process is required to authorize it. Don't be a hypocrite, but be in control.  

Yes, I agree wih him. It's better to use a very careful legal procedure than to outsource to where you lose control, saying hypocriticly "My hands are clean."

Dershowitz is saying that rather than being a hypocrite and outsourcing it to somewhere where you do not have control over it, better to NOT be a hypocrite and legalize it with extremely stringent controls.

In other words he proposed a legal framework for torture, much like the odious John Yoo, John Bybee and David Addington did during the Dubya regime......people whose actions were condemned by the DOJ Inspector General as being ethics violations.     I suggest you learn why both US law and the CAT state that there is no legal justification for torture and there can be no legal framework for it.

I have never understood anti Semitics. What is it all about?  A people who were thrown out everywhere finally found a place to call home.  They are a strong people and, sometimes, I think that is one of the problems in the USA.....people want us to fail.  Not all, fortunately, but some.  Israel sustains abuse on all levels.  They are small, but fearless.

I have never understood anti Semitics. What is it all about?

I can understand the rationale of Christian antisemitics.

I can understand the rationale of the far right antisemitics.

But, I've never fully understood the antisemitism displayed by parts of the political left, it would appear to run counter to everything the left claims to stand for.

One definition of the word "rationale" is "reasonableness".  Can you please explain why you consider anti-Semitism reasonable, if you do?

I'm saying I understand their reasons, not that I find them reasonable, but with the left I find it difficult to form a coherent understanding of their reasons.

Can you please explain why you consider anti-Semitism reasonable, if you do?

Buzz you know me better than that, or you should do.

My apologies. I should never have used the word "consider". What I meant is "called", i.e. why you CALLED anti-Semitism reasonable (because we BOTH know it is not). (says Buzz removing shirt to prepare for flogging).

I would not pay one cent to watch a movie that Mel Gibson has produced, directed or acted in. I have, however, watched them on free movie sites so by doing so it was an extended middle finger gesture.

(says Buzz removing shirt to prepare for flogging).

No harm, no foul Buzz.

I can understand their "reasoning" too. ie They're fringe wackos. Wacko and Reason is like Oil and Water.

Yes, yet it's coherent with their probable world view. This is why I don't understand some within the political left, their obvious antisemitism lacks this coherence.

Map of Israel and the Middle East. Israel is surrounded by Muslim Countries that despise its existence and would like it to be destroyed. You might need a magnifying glass to see Israel, which is coloured red. And WHO did you say was the underdog?

They now use terms like..."Oppressor" when referring to Israel.

Sort of like the hammer calling the nail the oppressor.  No surprise there.

They support the underdog and oppressed groups. Israel proved they are not these things in 1967, which is when the Left began to wane in their support for Israel.

Which works fine for anti Israeli sentiment, not antisemitism.  I'm aware of the so called New Antisemitism, however, swap Jew for Zionist, and it sounds very much like the old fashioned hatred of Jews, so I'm not overly convinced by it. I find it difficult to believe it's that simplistic, are these people really that moronic?

I mean no disrespect of course, but it does fit in their worldview.

If you think I'm being dense the years on NV more than earned you the right to say so Cos.

Israel proved they are not these things in 1967, which is when the Left began to wane in their support for Israel.

And that's an important point.

Many people today are unaware of it, but before the 1967 war the left was pro-Israel.  (except for very extreme Stalinist types). But then the Israelis has an unexpectedly big victory in that war-- and that upset the left, many of whom changed to being anti-Israel.

I had visited Israel shortly before the '67 war. There were lots of (non_Jewish) American adnd European tourists-- even many leftist Scandinavians who loved Israel...but then that changed. 

Unlike many, I am well aware and have first hand knowledge of their position. Though, not as first hand as you as I wasn't even born in 1967, let alone a visitor to Israel during the time.

It seems hard to believe it now. But in many ways it made sense. Up until fairly recently, the left was very much :pro-human rights". It was a major part of their belief system.  They didn't like the widespread & extremely brutal mistreatment of women throughput the Arab world. The horrendous persecution of gays. Their horrible brutality towards minorities.

(Although recently while many are still like that, there's a portion of the left are intensely bigoted, and really close minded. Its really strange considering their history).

But things do change-- at one point the Arab world was just as evolved as Europe-- probasb;y even more so. They've regressed horribly.

And I'm sure most people don't remember this-- but that as a demographic, U.S. Arabs were for the most part Republican! (they went for Bush during his first run for president). It was only after the U.S. attacked a Muslim country (Iraq) that they made the shift.

Sort of like the hammer calling the nail the oppressor.

Not really since Israel has the US as an Ally, that kind of puts a big thumb on the scale. Not that I care. The Issue here is the Cartoon which is said to be anti-Semitic. I don't see it, anti-Semitic to me means it is racist towards Jews and this cartoon isn't. It's a political cartoon that is like a thousand others I've seen, this one happens to be critical of Israel and of Dershowitz's speech and it pulls no punches but I'd hardly call it anti-Semitic. Unless We've gotten to the point in which we can't be critical of Israel without being branded a anti-Semite, which may well be the case given that these days you can't be critical of anything that a minority group wants or you'll be branded a Racist or Bigot. I just think with all the real anti-Semitic's in the world Dershowitz would be careful about crying wolf over a run of the mill political cartoon.

I think the Chancellor of the university's opinion differs from yours as to anti-Semitism.  Perhaps you have not seen the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the Unites States State Department, which is modelled on the Ottawa Protocol that was signed in Canada, and is also copied by the European Union. I have bolded the clause that applies to your argument, but I would like you to see the last line as well which indicates that fair criticism is NOT anti-Semitic.

What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

DEMONIZE ISRAEL:

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions

DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations

DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

state

As for the poster with the swastika drawn on Dershowitz's photo, do you deny that that was an anti-Semitic act?

As for the poster with the swastika drawn on Dershowitz's photo, do you deny that that was an anti-Semitic act?

Not at all it definitely is, but I highly doubt the person who made the cartoon had anything to do with putting the Swastika on the leaflet. These were two different acts by two different people one of which is clearly anti-Semitic and the other isn't. You directed my attention towards the last part of your post where it states that fair criticism is NOT anti-Semitic. It says "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic". So by that standard the Cartoon is definitely not anti-Semitic since I've seen worse leveled at dozens of Islamic countries, China, Russia, and the good old US of A. Seems the Cartoon has fallen squarely in the "criticism similar to that leveled against any other country" category it cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. I may not agree with what the Cartoon implies but I'm not going to falsely accuse someone of anti-Semitism just to discredit their point of view.

Okay, let's try something a little different. Had the cartoon been of Netanyahu, who as PM represents Israel, then it would have been a political cartoon. However, Dershowitz may have been speaking about Israel, but he is NOT a representative of Israel, he is an American lawyer, yet the cartoonist shows Dershowitz stomping on a Palestinian and holding an IDF soldier shooting a Palestinian. Dershowitz himself would NEVER have done those things, but he is known to be a Jew. Now, is that a political cartoon, or as the Chancellor of the university said, is it a blood libel, an anti-Semitic cartoon?

Oh, and by the way, if the cartoon was considered a valid political cartoon, why did the newspaper, its editor, etc. apologize?

His speech was called 'the liberal case for Israel", He is an admitted liberal and apparently is making a case For Israel. He put himself squarely in the line of fire by his own choice. Was the criticism on target ? I don't know I didn't listen to his speech I don't know what he tried to justify or condemn, it may well be that the criticism was undeserved but that doesn't make it anti-Semitic. I don't think that anyone who looks at this cartoon objectively thinks that it implies that Dershowitz committed the acts of violence portrayed, I think the painting of Israel that he's sticking his head through represents what they see as his speech (his representation of Israel) which apparently they see as glossing over the violence perpetrated on the civilian population By the Israeli Government (hence the violent images hidden behind the painting). To me it's not about whether the cartoon was an accurate assessment of Dershowitz or his speech (That tends toward personal beliefs) it's whether or not it was anti-Semitic, whether other political cartoons are like this one, and whether this cartoon is being judged by a higher standard because Dershowitz is Jewish and it's critical him and of Israel. Dershowitz had a whole article to counter the cartoons criticisms but instead lobbed a blanket charge of anti-Semitism at the authors. He even went so far as to call for the persecution of those involved which seems awfully petty and vindictive given Dershowitz's abilities to defend himself against his critics. He is as you said "a paragon of the legal world" you'd think he'd be up to a debate with a bunch of College kids. I will add that if and when charges of Anti-Semitism can be used to silence any and all criticisms of Israel you will have only succeeded in making the term meaningless.

Oh, and by the way, if the cartoon was considered a valid political cartoon, why did the newspaper, its editor, etc. apologize?

Because the Chancellor of the University was against him/her. Because Dershowitz called for the persecution of all those involved. Forcing someone to apologize under threat doesn't convince me that they've come around to his way of thinking, the threats are real and can have a real and lasting impact on their careers and future. I see victims but Dershowitz isn't one of them.

If you substitute "Israel" for "Jew" this cartoon would read just like Nazi and Islamic propaganda that is antisemitic.

Using that standard any and all political cartoons criticizing Israel could be called anti-Semitic but political cartoons have been around for thousands of years long before Nazi's and Islamist's used them and they're all pretty much the same. They usually criticize the target and the use imagery to do it, they often support one side of an issue (not fair and balanced), they're usually offensive to those who don't agree with them, and they tend to exaggerate the point for effect. There is no law or rule that says the a political cartoon must support the views of the majority to be legitimate. The only real issue here is whether we can criticize a Jewish person or the State of Israel the same way we criticize others without being accused of being anti-Semitic. In my opinion using false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence your critics does more harm than good to your cause.

I want to thank you for a civil debate providing the other side of the argument. One of your points was this:

"The only real issue here is whether we can criticize a Jewish person or the State of Israel the same way we criticize others without being accused of being anti-Semitic."

In that regard I reiterate this exception, stated in the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by civilized western countries I quoted above:

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

Basically, I believe that means fair criticism is acceptable. Telling the truth complies with the exception. IMO false propaganda is not truth, and as a totally  experienced soldier, Col. Richard Kemp, who is neither Jewish nor Israeli and was part of an independent group that investigated the claims that the IDF sought out to kill civilians, declared, no military force in the world is as careful and tries as hard not to kill civilians.  I believe him. Propagandists do not.

As for the squelching of a desire for nationalism, what more can Israel have done to bring the Palestinians to accept the peace offerings that Israel has made. The Palestinians walked away from offers wherein 95% and even 97% of their demands were to be fulfilled, Israel released thousands of Palestinian prisoners who had blood on their hands, Israel gave up lands they had lived on for millennia, the PA demanded an 11 month moratorium on settlement building, which Israel provided, and only in the 11th hour of it the Palestinians demanded an extension because they refused until that time to come to the table. All of these demands the Palestinians made but not only did the Palestinians not make one concession, did not negotiate, they just walked away from the table. And this is deemed to be stomping on Palestinian nationalism?

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with your opinion. The cartoon is not truth, it is a propaganda lie. Dershowitz made it clear that he supports a Palestinian State, that he does not support settlement building, yet the cartoon holds HIM out to be a murderer of civilians and a denier of Palestinian nationalism. Those are the reasons I say the cartoon is anti-Semitic. Yes, that is why Dershowitz fought back about the cartoon.  Did he declare a fatwa?  Did he threaten to behead the perpetrators? Or did he do what anti-Semites think Jews should do, cower and slink away into darkness.

As I have said, I thank you for providing your opinion. However, you have not convinced me, not will you ever.

But, I've never fully understood the antisemitism displayed by parts of the political left, it would appear to run counter to everything the left claims to stand for.

Some folks confuse criticism of Israel's policies with being antisemitic, apparently unaware that leftists within Israel have the same complaints.

I repeat what I posted above, being the caveat to the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by many civilized western countries including the USA:

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

I will assume that you will admit that the drawing of a swastika over Dershowitz's picture is in fact antii-Semitic. In a comment above, I also pointed out why the cartoon is not just propaganda, it is a lie, and therefore would not be considered a valid compliance with the caveat.  That is why it it anti-Semitic.

I will assume that you will admit that the drawing of a swastika over Dershowitz's picture is in fact antii-Semitic.

There's no doubt that it was but I fail to see how your response addresses my comment.

Not really since Israel has the US as an Ally, that kind of puts a big thumb on the scale

And in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arab world has always had the USSR & Communist China with their thumbs on the scale. (As well aas several Communist nations during the existence of the Soviet bloc. And any Arab nation has has 20+ Arab nations-- plus the rest of the 55 Islamic nations--  including many obscenely wealthy oil rich nations--- putting their thumbs on the other side of the scale!)

I find it difficult to believe it's that simplistic, are these people really that moronic?

Yes.

Dershowitz is not being what is expected of a "good Jew" and cowardly slinking away.

thenewstalkers

Bravo! 

But, they also hold ground that is a part of the Palestinian heritage, the problem is also that SOME of the Palestinians were or, are Jewish, their land has been systematically taken from them by the Israeli's over time, the city of David, Jerusalem is Holy not only to the Israeli's but, to every Palestinian. When you talk about a Palestinian you are talking about a people who are as diverse as Americans or, almost as diverse, there are Christians, Muslims and, Jews in that mix of people, it is the Muslims that you hear more about because they have been the most organized in the region and, the more vocal. I'm not anti-Semitic but, I am anti-hate.

Seems like to me that is a Palestine/Israel problem.  But, I believe it goes deeper than that.  I remember in the U.S. when some areas would not sell homes to Jews,  Why?  It is not a Christian/Jew problem.  It is a cultural problem and why?

I think that both kpr and Bob Nelson have given very accurate histories of the legal and historical rights of the Jews to the WHOLE of the land presnently called Israel, including Judea and Samaria. There were no such people called "Palestinians" until the 20th century. Even Arafat was an Egyptian.

That goes back to the days of the Klan, when it was "popular" to be a bigot.

But, they also hold ground that is a part of the Palestinian heritage, the problem is also that SOME of the Palestinians were or, are Jewish , their land has been systematically taken from them by the Israeli's over time, the city of David, Jerusalem is Holy not only to the Israeli's but, to every Palestinian.

Some of the modern day Palestinians ancestors were probably of Jewish origin, but they're no longer Jewish. Some would have become Christians, and some would have become Muslims, and most cases we're going back centuries here. If you are referring to the Old Yishuv, they aren't to the best of my knowledge Palestinian citizens. Indeed, didn't Abbas say 

“In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo.

timesofisrael

But, they also hold ground that is a part of the Palestinian heritage, the problem is also that SOME of the Palestinians were or, are Jewish, their land has been systematically taken from them by the Israeli's over time, the city of David, Jerusalem is Holy not only to the Israeli's but, to every Palestinian .

Not because it was David's city, haven't you seen articles like this?

jpost

When you talk about a Palestinian you are talking about a people who are as diverse as Americans or, almost as diverse, there are Christians, Muslims and, Jews in that mix of people, it is the Muslims that you hear more about because they have been the most organized in the region and, the more vocal.

Yes, rather than being a distinct separate people, they are from all over the Middle East.

You've list three different groups, one that I'm contending, how does that stack up against America?

The World & I Online showcases this here. From Asia to Europe to Africa to Latin America, some 128 articles trace each nationality’s broad history and important contributions to the American way of life.

worldandi

The Census Bureau estimates that more than 300 languages are spoken in the United States . The bureau divides those languages into four categories: Spanish; other Indo-European languages, which includes German, Yiddish, Swedish, French, Italian, Russian, Polish, Hindi, Punjabi, Greek and several others; Asian and Pacific Island languages, including Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Thai, Tamil and more; and "all other languages," which is a category for languages that didn't fit into the first three categories, such as Hungarian, Arabic, Hebrew, languages of Africa and languages of native people of North, Central and South America.

livescience

Not so good.

Very true but, it was during that time that anyone who was there before the European Jews came to "Palestine" in the creation of Israel were lumped together and, called Palestinians whether they were Jews, Christians or, Muslims, it was these people who had to fight with the Israeli's, (European Jews) for the land that they had lived in for century's.

I was referring to the diversity of the three major religions of the region, Christian, Jew, Muslim, these folks lived together for thousands of years without killing each other but, the European Jews show up with the U.S and, Great Briton backing them up with weapons and, they tell the people there, "This isn't your land, it's ours, by right of God." Their writings tell them that God gave them the land, they look and, it's the same God, the same books but, these new people, (the European Jews), refuse to share the way they have done for thousands of years, they want war.

As I suggested, I think that a study of a valid history might differ from your opinion. The European Jews who came to Israel before the Holocaust refugees settled mostly on lands purchased from earlier landlords by the Rothschilds.  However, there were bloody conflicts between the Arabs and Jews well before Partition. Many Arabs moved to Israel to work for the Jews while the Jews were developing Israel at least a century ago.

In any event, the topic of the article is the issue of left wing anti-Semitism, not the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Anti-Semitism preceded the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by many centuries, even in America.  In Canada, I grew up in a neighbourhood 3 houses away from a community that was restricted - no Jews allowed (and that was prior to WWII).

these folks lived together for thousands of years without killing each other

Not so much, the whip hand was firmly with the Muslims, then there where incidents like the looting in 1834 Safed.

It should be noted Islam is about 1400 years old, so no, they haven't peacefully lived together for thousands of years.

It should also be noted Muhammad drove two Jewish tribes from Medina, and massacred a third.

But, they also hold ground that is a part of the Palestinian heritage,

The identity of "Palestinian" is a myth. There has never been a racial, religious, ethnic or national group with a unique identity of "Palestinian".

The attempt to have us believe there was was created in 1967 by Arab propaganda, backed by endless amounts of oil money.

So what was "Palestine"? It was the name of a roughly defined general area--- like the American "Midwest"--or the "East". It was never a distinct country, ethnicity, religious group, etc.

In that area, the inhabitants identified with certain groups. Many were Arabs, then further defined as "Sunni Arabs" (as opposed to Shia Arabs) Or "Palestinian Arabs" (as differentiated from "North African Arabs" etc. )

Up until independene , indigenous Jews identified as Jews-- but sometimes referred to themselves as "Palestinian Jews" -- meaning living in that area. (Not, for example,   "North African Jews").

Before independence, there was no country of "Palestine". It was all a Mandate (a colony) of Britain. Before that-- t he Ottoman Empire..

I was referring to the diversity of the three major religions of the region, Christian, Jew, Muslim, these folks lived together for thousands of years without killing each other but

Exactly!

For example, political correctness would have us believe that the Crusades were actually bloody wars-- but in reality they were merely fun events fought with harmless paintball guns!

I was referring to the diversity of the three major religions of the region, Christian, Jew, Muslim, these folks lived together for thousands of years without killing each other but, the European Jews show up

Jews are indigenous to the Middle East. "European Jews" were/are descendents of indigenous Middle eastern Jews who were forced to leave and migrated to safety in Europe (amongst other places).

who was there before the European Jews came to "Palestine"

The European Jews did not "come to Palestine"!

 Thedy were descendants of indigenous Israeli Jews whose families lived there for centuries but left when the Romans conquered the area in 72 AD.

They were not indigenous Europeans-- rather, they returned to their homeland afterindependence in 1948. (Actually somemhad continuously inhabited Israel since ancient times).

But, the European Jews show up with the U.S and, Great Briton backing them up with weapons

Totally false! The U.S. and Britain refused to give them or sell them any weapons! (In fact the Brits were cozy with the Jordanians, and trained them and supplied them with weapons to use against Israel)>

In the war of independence not one sent weapons to Israel except Czechslovakia...

Like most everything you've said so far, its obvious you've fallen for Arab propaganda ( in a way I can't blame you--- Arab propaganda seems to be everywhere).

If by any chance you are interested-- here are the actual facts:

Who did what for Israel in 1948? America Did Nothing

Having just taught a course on the Cultural Geography of the Middle East at a community college in Florida for "seniors" (over 55 years of age), I again encountered a unanimous belief among my students in what I would call the Most Widely Believed Myth of the political and military conflict between Israel and the Arabs. 

This universal belief, never challenged by the media, is that the United States was wholly or largely responsible for fully supporting Israel on the ground from the very beginning of its independence in May, 1948.

The world has been inundated with a tsunami of Arab propaganda and crocodile tears shed for the "Palestinians" who have reveled in what they refer to as their Catastrophe or Holocaust (Nabka in Arabic). Their plight has been accompanied by unremitting criticism that the United States was the principal architect that stood behind Israel from the very beginning with money, manpower and arms. The fact is that President Truman eventually decided against the pro-Arab "professional opinion" of his Secretary of State, General George Marshall and the Arabists of the State Department.

(Cont'd in a following comment)

Yup.

Here's what Tel Aviv was like before the re-creation of Israellin 1948:

The Founding of Tel Aviv

Tel Aviv today:

I remember in the U.S. when some areas would not sell homes to Jews,

In parts of the Arab world it goes further than that:

PA AFFIRMS DEATH PENALTY FOR LAND SALES TO ISRAELIS

PA Prosecutor-General Ahmed al-Mughni appealed against the ruling to a higher court, arguing that the sale of land to Israelis was a “major offense” punishable by death.

The appeal was accepted.

That verdict considering such offenses a major offense is aimed at reminding Palestinians of the PA law that prohibits selling land to Jews, Mughni said.

The land law, which was originally put in force by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, carries the death sentence.

But... but... "apartheid"!

Yes the Israelis were on their own. After the nation of Israel was created a worldwide embargo of military supplies and arms was established against Israel.

In many ways the Israelites got around it. The Airforce obtained Me-109G's from Czechoslovakia (the license built Avia S-99 and 199's)

like this...

And this one...

And here is one in the Israeli Air Force Museum....

They were widow makers and very dangerous to fly given the fact that they were powered by the Junkers Jumo 211 F engine and propeller of the Heinkel He 111 bomber. The torque of the engine propeller combination made the plane very difficult to take off and land given the narrow landing gear track of the aircraft.

The real amazing thing is how they got them from Czechoslovakia to Israel. The Isralies had purchased 6 C-47 and one C-54 cargo aircraft from an auction in southern California with the intent to turn them into passenger aircraft. but the deal came through with the Czechs for the fighter planes so they quickly formed the Israelie Airforce air transport branch and used these cargo aircraft to transport their purchases. They were also provided tons and tons of German designed equipment by the Czech's including machine guns, rifles, mortars, artillery pieces and ammunition for everything. Basically the Israelies military used a goodly portion of Nazi designed and manufactured equipment when the Egyptian army struck in 1948.

Ah, the Egyptian army at the time was being supplied with top of the line British and American equipment. So was Jordan. and these aircraft shortly after arriving were first used in an airstrike against the Egyptian army on May 29, attacking the Egyptian army between Isdud and the Ad Halom bridge, south of Tel Aviv.

A few days later, on June 3, the type scored the Israeli Air Force’s first aerial victories when Modi Alon shot down a pair of Royal Egyptian Air Force C-47s which had just bombed Tel Aviv. However it was an American, Gideon Lichtman who became the first Israeli Air Force pilot to shoot down an Arab fighter plane.

Another major flaw with the aircraft lay in the gun synchronizer for the cowl-mounted MG 131 machine guns, which led to reports of Israeli aircraft shooting off their own propellers in combat. Furthermore, maintenance problems meant that no more than five were typically airworthy at any one time.

The aircraft type did manage to score victories over its opponents, including the legendary Spitfire.    Rudy Augarten, 26, an American Harvard student was one of the top scoring Israeli pilot and mainly flew the Avia. Augarten was a veteran of WW2 and ironically had downed two German ME-109s while flying a P-47 over Germany.  Whilst flying the Avias he shot down four Egyptian aircraft including a British built Spitfire and an American P-51. The aircraft were mostly withheld from service by the end of October due to their performance, by which time only six remained operational.

AS you can see, the US government didn't support the Israelis at first or the nation of Israel, but a lot of individual Americans did......

Bob Dylan wrote a song about Israel:

Neighborhood Bully

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully he just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
Not supposed to fight back, and have thick skin,
Supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
There's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well he got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed will cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
His pride and prejudice his superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.

But, the European Jews show up with the U.S and, Great Briton backing them up with weapons.

As previously shown here-- that is totally false. 

And there's much more:

Nazi and Reactionary Support for the Arabs

There was nothing "progressive" about those who supported the Arab side. The acknowledged leader of the Palestinian Arab cause was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had fled from Palestine to Iraq to exile in Berlin where he led the "Arab office," met with Hitler whom he called "the Protector of Islam," served the Germans in Bosnia where he was instrumental in raising Muslim volunteers among the Bosnians to work with the SS.  

At the end of the war, the Yugoslav government declared him a war criminal and sentenced him to death. Palestinian Arabs still regard him as their original supreme leader. Lending active support to the Arab war effort were Falangist volunteers from Franco's Spain, Bosnian Muslims and Nazi renegades who had escaped the Allies in Europe.

The close relationship between the Nazi movement and the German government under Hitler in courting the Arab Palestinian and Pan-Arab attempt to act as Fifth column in the Middle East has been thoroughly researched by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers' in their new book   Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina , ( Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine )  

It was published in September, 2006 and has yet to appear in English translation. It documents the Arab sympathies for Nazism, particularly in Palestine and German attempts to mobilize and encourage the Arabs with their ideology, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forces around the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, in Palestine.

Nazi radio broadcasts to the Arabs between 1939 and 1945 constantly proclaimed the natural German sympathy for the Arab cause against Zionism and the Jews

(LINK).

I really think i would prefer to get back to the story of Dershowitz and the Berkley anti-Semitism.  I have seen an article that the newspaper has apologized, as they should.

Article relating the apology:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/27/berkeley-student-newspaper-apologizes-for-cartoon-depicting-alan-dershowitz-stomping-a-palestinian/?utm_term=.1275ad399c39

Alan Dershowitz is an apologist for all things Israeli, and Jewish. There is nothing wrong with that, but he is definitely not an objective commentator on these issues. He is also no longer considered to be a progressive to the best of my knowledge.

Gatestone Institute is an anti-Muslim outfit. Their roster of writers is filled with anti-Muslim propagandists like Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Geert Wilders.

I think whether or not the cartoon is "anti-semitic" is in the eye of the beholder. I think there are reasonable arguments for both sides of it.

"Their roster of writers is filled with anti-Muslim propagandists like Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Geert Wilders."

Seems to me that many of the articles were written by Muslims. I have been getting the Gatestone Newletters for years, and have never seen an article yet written by Robert Spencer or David Horowitz but I think I recall one by Geert Wilders.

Here is the complete Text Buzz......

The Great Debate
The case for torture warrants
By Alan Dershowitz
September 7, 2011

By Alan Dershowitz
The opinions expressed are his own.
One goal of terrorism directed against democracies is to provoke overreaction and repression. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, many Americans did in fact overreact, and although the actions of the government did not approach “repression,” there were some overreactions that seemed to play into the hands of the terrorists. Perhaps the most egregious were the acts of humiliation and torture that were captured by cell phone photographs at Abu Ghraib prison. These disturbing photographs went viral throughout the world and showed the ugly face of American torture. Surprisingly, the events of 9/11 also stimulated a debate within Western democracies: Is torture ever justified in the war against terrorism?

Rational discussion of this and other questions relating to torture proved difficult, because the issues are so emotional. Indeed, to many absolutists, the very idea of a “rational” discussion of torture is an oxymoron. To them, the issue is simple and clear-cut: torture should never be employed or even considered, because it never works; it is incompatible with democratic values; it is barbaric; it will always lead to more barbaric practices; it is worse than any evils it may prevent; it will provoke even more terrorism; it strips any democracy employing it of the moral standing to object to human rights violations by other nations or groups; and it unleashes the “law of unintended consequences.”

Most of these arguments are empirical in nature and may be true or false as matters of fact. But there is one fact that is indisputably true, has always been true, and, in my view, will always be true. That fact is that every democracy confronted with a genuine choice of evils between allowing many of its citizens to be killed by terrorists, or employing some forms of torture to prevent such multiple deaths, will opt for the use of torture. This, too, is an empirical claim, and I am entirely confident that it is true as a matter of fact.

Although the current administration, unlike its predecessor, has announced that it would never torture suspected terrorists, it has also resisted any judicial review of its counterterrorism measures. “Trust us,” but don’t ask us to justify that trust! Such an approach might be acceptable if men were angels, but no administration is run by angels. That is why visibility and accountability are essential to democratic governance. Neither is this an issue that divides along party lines. President Clinton implicitly acknowledged on National Public Radio that he would have used torture in an extreme case:

We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don’t need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the President to make a finding in a [ticking bomb] case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Clinton was then asked whether he was saying there “would be more responsibility afterward for what was done.” He replied: “Yeah, well, the President could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case-by-case basis, and there’d be some review of it.” He summarized his views in the following terms:

If they really believe the time comes when the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of someone or put a drug in their body to talk it out of’em, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Court, or some other court, just under the same circumstances we do with wiretaps. Post facto . . . But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantánamo, we’re gonna be in real trouble.

Although I do not know what President Obama would say, I do know what his administration would do if faced with a real ticking bomb situation. No President would want to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens if he could have prevented these deaths by authorizing the use of nonlethal torture against a guilty terrorist. If I am correct, then it is important to consider the following: if the use of torture is imminent, is it worse to close our eyes and tolerate it by low-level law enforcement officials without accountability, or instead bring it to the surface by requiring a warrant for it as a precondition to its infliction? The question is not whether some torture would or would not be used in the ticking bomb case—it surely would. The dilemma is whether it would be done openly, pursuant to a previously established legal procedure, or whether it would be done secretly, in violation of existing law. This is the important policy issue about which I have tried to begin a debate: how should a democracy make difficult choice-of-evil decisions in situations for which there is no good resolution?

Several important values are pitted against each other. The first is the safety and security of a nation’s citizens. Under the ticking bomb scenario, this value may necessitate the use of torture, if torture is the only way to prevent the bomb from killing large numbers of civilians. The second value is the preservation of civil liberties and human rights. This value requires that we reject torture as an illegitimate part of our legal system. In my debates with two prominent civil libertarians, Floyd Abrams and Harvey Silverglate, both have acknowledged that they would want nonlethal torture to be used if it could prevent thousands of deaths, but they did not want torture to be officially recognized by our legal system. As Abrams put it: “In a democracy sometimes it is necessary to do things off the books and below the radar screen.”

Abrams’ approach illustrates a conflict with the third important democratic value: open accountability and visibility. “Off the books actions below the radar screen” are antithetical to the theory and practice of democracy. Citizens cannot approve or disapprove of governmental actions of which they are unaware. Experience has shown that off-the-books actions can produce terrible consequences. Richard Nixon’s creation of a group of “plumbers” led to Watergate, and Ronald Reagan’s authorization of off-the-books foreign policy in Central America led to the Iran-Contra scandal.

Only in a democracy committed to civil liberties would a triangular conflict of this kind exist. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes experience no such conflict, because they subscribe to neither the civil libertarian nor the democratic values that come in conflict with the value of security. The hard question is: which value is to be preferred when an inevitable clash occurs? If we do not torture, we compromise the security and safety of our citizens. If we tolerate torture, but keep it off the books and below the radar screen, we compromise principles of democratic accountability. If we create a legal structure for limiting and controlling torture, we compromise our principled opposition to torture in all circumstances and create a potentially dangerous and expandable situation.

In 1678, François de La Rochefoucauld wrote, “hypocrisy is the homage that vice renders to virtue.” In this case we have two vices: terrorism and torture. We also have two virtues: civil liberties and democratic accountability. Most civil libertarians I know prefer hypocrisy, precisely because it appears to avoid the conflict between security and civil liberties. But by choosing the way of the hypocrite, these civil libertarians compromise the value of democratic accountability. Such is the nature of tragic choices in a complex world. As Bentham put it more than two centuries ago: “Government throughout is but a choice of evils.” In a democracy, such choices must be made, whenever possible, with openness and democratic accountability, and subject to the rule of law.

The moral dilemma posed by torture can be ignored only if we assume, as some do, that torture never works. I have been criticized for raising a red herring since it is “well known” that torture does not work. The tragic reality is that torture sometimes works, though many people wish it did not. There are numerous instances in which torture has produced self-proving, truthful information that was necessary to prevent harm to civilians.

The Washington Post has recounted a case from 1995 in which Philippine authorities tortured a terrorist into disclosing information that may have foiled plots to assassinate the Pope, crash eleven commercial airliners into the Pacific Ocean, and fly a private Cessna filled with explosives into CIA headquarters. For sixty-seven days, intelligence agents beat the suspect “with a chair and a long piece of wood [breaking most of his ribs], forced water into his mouth, and crushed lighted cigarettes into his private parts.” After successfully employing this procedure, they turned him over to American authorities, along with the lifesaving information they had beaten out of him. And following the killing of Osama bin Laden, CIA officials claimed that valuable information elicited by waterboarding helped in locating the world’s most wanted terrorist. It is impossible to avoid the difficult moral dilemma of choosing among evils by denying the empirical reality that torture sometimes works, even if it does not always work. No technique of crime prevention always works.

The goal of the torture warrant proposal is to reduce the use of torture to the smallest amount and degree possible, while creating public accountability for its rare use. I see it not as a compromise with civil liberties but rather as an effort to maximize civil liberties in the face of the realistic likelihood that torture does and will, in fact, take place below the radar screen of accountability.

It seems to me logical that a formal, visible, accountable, and centralized system is somewhat easier to control than an ad hoc, off-the-books, and under-the-radar-screen non-system. I believe, though I certainly cannot prove, that a formal requirement of a judicial warrant as a prerequisite to nonlethal torture would decrease the amount of physical violence directed against suspects. At the most obvious level, a double check is always more protective than a single check. In every instance in which a warrant is requested, a field officer has already decided that torture is justified; in the absence of a warrant requirement, the officer would simply have proceeded to implement torture. Requiring that decision to be approved by a judicial officer will result in fewer instances of torture even if the judges rarely turn down a request.

Moreover, I believe that most judges would require compelling evidence before they would authorize so extraordinary a departure from our constitutional norms. A record would be kept of every warrant granted, and although it is certainly possible that some individual agents might torture without a warrant, they would have no excuse, since a warrant procedure would be available. They could not claim “necessity,” because the decision as to whether the torture is indeed necessary has been taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of a judge. In addition, even if torture were deemed totally illegal without any exception, it would still occur, though the public would be less aware of its existence.

I also believe that the rights of the suspect would be better protected with a warrant requirement. He would be granted immunity, told that he was now compelled to testify, threatened with imprisonment, and given the option of providing the requested information. Only if he refused to do what he was legally compelled to do—provide necessary information, which could not incriminate him because of the immunity—would he be threatened with torture. Knowing that such a threat was authorized by the law, he might well provide the information. If he still refused, he would be subjected to judicially monitored physical measures designed to cause excruciating pain without leaving any lasting damage.

Of course, there is something different about torture that makes us loath to bring torture within the oversight of our judicial officers. In addition to the horrible history associated with torture, there is also the aesthetic of torture: the very idea of deliberately subjecting a captive human being to excruciating pain violates our sense of acceptable conduct. Yet what moral principle could justify the death penalty for past individual murders, while condemning nonlethal torture to prevent future mass murders? Bentham posed this rhetorical question as support for his argument regarding torture. In the United States we execute convicted murderers, despite compelling evidence of the unfairness and ineffectiveness of capital punishment. Yet many who support capital punishment recoil at the prospect of shoving a sterilized needle under the finger of a suspect who is refusing to divulge information that might prevent multiple deaths.

In our modern age, the death penalty is underrated, while pain is overrated. That we put the prisoner “to sleep” by injecting a lethal substance into his body covers up that death is forever while nonlethal pain is temporary. Despite the irrationality of these distinctions, they are understandable. But in the end, the absolute opposition to torture may rest more on historical and aesthetic considerations than on moral or logical considerations.

We cannot have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on torture that enables our President and attorney general to close their eyes to uses of torture while simultaneously denying torture categorically— the kind of willful blindness condemned by the courts in other contexts. With no limitations, standards, principles, or accountability, the use of torture techniques will expand.

Torture, like any other topic, deserves a vigorous debate in a democracy such as ours. Even if government officials decline to discuss such issues, academics and advocacy groups have a duty to raise them and submit them to the marketplace of ideas. There may be danger in open discussion, but there is far greater danger in actions based on secret discussion. What is a quintessentially democratic problem requires a quintessentially democratic response. In short, it is not inconsistent to be opposed to torture and yet in favor of a torture warrant. Democratic accountability for torture is not an oxymoron.

This post has been excerpted with permission from the new book Confronting Terror: 9/11 and the Future of American National Security (Encounter), edited by Dean Reuter and John Yoo. Excerpt copyright 2011, Alan Dershowitz.

Photo: A Pakistani girl holds a photograph showing U.S. soldier smiling beside the body of an Iraqi prisoner during a protest of the Citizens Peace Committee, a Non Goverment Organisation (NGO) in Islamabad on May 26, 2004. [The demonstration was held to condemn U.S. military abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.] REUTERS/Mian Kursheed

It appears to me that Dershowitz is making the lesser of two evils argument, elaborating on both sides of the issue as a comparison of the choice....

the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario where the bomb will kill tens of thousands (or even millions) and you have the guy that planted it.

Do you torture him for the info and save a great many lives or do you allow him his day in court and allow many many people to die?

He was making the argument from both sides and playing devils advocate....

One needs to understand this before claiming that Alan is advocating for torture.....

This was in reply to Buzz's comment where he couldn't open the link...

here

I finally found a site that had the debate, and I made a comment about my interpretation, but then I thought more about it and replied with this comment:

I'm not crazy about the cartoon, but it's not  of bounds. Sure, Dershowitz claims he supports a Palestinian state and an end to hostilities. Unfortunately, he also supports the Israeli government, and that is the problem. It's the Israeli government who is stealing the land that Palestine is supposed to be created from, and that is what is fueling the hostilities. So, the question becomes, which side of his mouth is he lying from? I don't see this as a religious problem, it's a problem of hypocrisy.