.

[nmb238]

bluewarrior- i think offmason's point is that while Arab and Jew are both Semites, modern culture has designated the word "anti-Semitic" to refer to hatred of Jews. I think this traces back to the Nazis, who designated the jews for the first time as a separate semitic race, as opposed to their Aryan one. Nazis had blatant contempt for nonwhites, and they had to rope Jews into the nonwhite category and thus targeted Jews first because they physically looked like everyone else. They were designated as Semites to remind everyone that they were like the inferior Arabs, who would later come under Aryan rule/annihilation as well.

anyway i think thats the history but i could be wrong. i dont think anyone- educated or not- would call an rightist Jewish settler an "anti-Semite" for disliking Arabs. at the same time, to deny that Jews and Arabs share a Semitic heritage is also pretty silly.

[rhombot]

the usage traces back to some of the nazis' forerunners in late 19th century germany.

[Shaan]

Israel's recent attacks on civilian infrastructure, which have led to a humanitarian crisis, are not justifiable under the circumstances of the conflict. Does the kidnapping (not murder) of two soldiers, plus the firing of a few rockets justify the deaths of over 100 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians? Does it justify the kidnapping of Palestinian foreign ministers, the destruction of government buildings in Palestine, the demolition of civilian bridges? Does it justify the bombing of a TV station and an international civilian airport in Lebanon?

Leaders from all over the world have denounced Israel's disproportionate use of force. The only country that has not done so is the United States -- no surprise there.

[ad hominem]

israel's attack was not under the category of terrorism.  the fuel tanks at the beirut int'l airport were attacked to isolate and immobilize the hezbollah.  none can escape and no weapons will be sent to them from syria or iran.  this was more of a military strategic attack.  there was no intent by israel to kill civilians for the sake of it, which is unlike the attack of 9/11.  8 civilians were killed, which is very unfortunate, but collateral damage will inevitably ensue in any type of conflict.

[ad hominem]

Does the kidnapping (not murder) of two soldiers, plus the firing of a few rockets justify the deaths of over 100 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians? Does it justify the kidnapping of Palestinian foreign ministers, the destruction of government buildings in Palestine, the demolition of civilian bridges? Does it justify the bombing of a TV station and an international civilian airport in Lebanon?

i think that the build up of hostile acts by the middle eastern region has cause israel to snap.  this goes beyond than 2 kidnapped soldiers, it's 60 years of struggle.  israel is definitely trying to make a statement that it will no longer take a backseat.  heck, they could fight the whole middle east by themselves and win. (six days war)

[sk]

Israel's recent attacks on civilian infrastructure, which have led to a humanitarian crisis, are not justifiable under the circumstances of the conflict. Does the kidnapping (not murder) of two soldiers, plus the firing of a few rockets justify the deaths of over 100 Palestinian and Lebanese civilians? Does it justify the kidnapping of Palestinian foreign ministers, the destruction of government buildings in Palestine, the demolition of civilian bridges? Does it justify the bombing of a TV station and an international civilian airport in Lebanon?

Leaders from all over the world have denounced Israel's disproportionate use of force. The only country that has not done so is the United States -- no surprise there.

The answer to your question, rhetorical as it may be, is YES! The kidnapping of three (not two) soldiers and the firing of hundreds (not a few) of rockets does justify the seemingly extreme reaction by the Israeli government. After the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza the Palestinian government chose, with absolutely no provocation, to lunch missiles at the city of Sderot on a daily basis. A sovereign nation being attacked cannot stand idly by while its citizenry is being bombed. If you have a problem grasping this concept of self-defense, just imagine what the US would have done to a nation lunching rockets at its cities. This unprovoked attack, in turn, is the sole underlying cause for the escalation. The IDF is simply exercising the right given to every sovereign nation: self-defense.

What amazes me time and time again is how those sorry-ass excuses for leaders, which include most of the European and Arab heads of state, refer to Israel’s self-defense as “aggression”. It’s astounding that after crossing over into sovereign Israeli territory, kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and bombing Israeli cities, all with absolutely no provocation, the leaders of the Hezbollah have the audacity to call for appeasement. Did they really think that their terror will have no consequences?

[Miss P]

That's the pikuah nefesh spirit, ain't it?

[sk]

what do you mean??

[Miss P]

what do you mean??

If you don't understand this bastard bit of Judaism, I'm afraid your defense of a Jewish state just lost a bit of my esteem, champ.

[Miss P]

That's the pikuah nefesh spirit, ain't it?

not worth much if all 6 million Jews are killed by Iranian nukes, is it...   

Either you know something I don't know about Iranian politics (which I strongly doubt!), or these are hardly related. And don't point me to the IDF press release, okay?