Losing a Legacy?

Pages: 1 2

Next on film was a short clip of an interview with a handsome middle-aged civilian who was a pilot of one of the Hercules planes that left the Sirkin air force base for the seven -hour trip to Entebbe. “We were so afraid of failure,” he says, his dark eyes looking unflinchingly at the camera. “But on the way back, I felt like it was Pesach. I recalled the words of the Hagaddah: ‘I and no angel: I and no messenger brought you out of the land of Egypt,’ concluded the pilot who wore no kippa on his silver hair. “If they told me now, 25 years later to go on such a mission, I’d go without hesitation. Ayn Lanu Eretz Acheret! We have no other country,” he said, in a theme that was to echo throughout the evening.

Film interviews with others involved in the rescue followed. Almost all those who played significant roles in Entebbe went on to illustrious military and political careers. We watched as Ehud Barak, Matan Vilnai, Dan Shomron and Ephraim Sneh spoke of their recollections twenty-five years on.

Shomron, the overall planner of the operation told the former hostages: “We knew we were endangering you too. No one had any idea how many would fall.

You were part of the campaign, you’re part of the fight against terror.”

Two of the paratroopers came on stage to read short statements in their own words about their feelings on the anniversary of the operation.

One tall, balding man with a gray mustache said he was disappointed that his teenage son ‘s classmates knew nothing about Operation Yonatan. “We’re facing the same things today, they need more than virtual Zionism, ” he said.

Benny, a younger man who was only 13 years old when he was taken hostage by the terrorists, told the audience in a trembling voice that he remembers every moment of the torment. “I was a kid who saw death in front of him.”

Tzipi Cohen was only 8 years old when she witnessed her father Pasco bleeding to death as he was accidentally shot by Israeli soldiers in the confusion of the rescue. Pasco Cohen lifted his head to look for his son when the shooting started and became one of four Jewish hostages who perished in Uganda. His daughter ended her brief remarks by reiterating her gratitude to the IDF for saving all the hostages, despite her personal tragedy.

The final segment of the two-hour program was entitled ‘The Price.’ Besides the loss of Yoni Netanyahu and the four hostages, one soldier, Surin Hershko, became a quadriplegic as a result of the injuries he sustained at Entebbe. We watched on screen as Surin used his computer at home. He uses an elongated straw manipulated by his mouth to write on the keyboard.

Hershko is completely paralyzed, but rolled to the front of the auditorium in his wheelchair to reminisce about the last time he ran or walked. “I remember what it was to be a fighter,” he recalled.

After presenting Hershko with a special medal commemorating Entebbe, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon delivered a speech that tied Israel’s efforts to combat terror in the 1970s to today’s struggle against the same enemy:

“In these confusing times, when there are those who question our capabilities or the justness of our cause, we return to those few hours when Israel stood up and in the face of the entire community of nations, waged a battle against violence and terrorism, proving that we can win.

These days, when we are in the midst of an ongoing battle against terrorism, violence and incitement, and when we are making a joint national effort to return to political negotiations without fire, we must rekindle the spirit of that operation. The secret of our strength lies in such spirit and faith, and if we learn how to renew it we will be able to meet all the challenges that still lie ahead.”

Nine years after those words, how little has changed.

Judy Lash Balint is a Jerusalem based writer. She blogs at jerusalemdiaries.blogspot.com

Pages: 1 2

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Zatoichi Sam Deakins

    I remember that rescue mission and even though I am not a Jew; I still felt proud that the Good Guys won. We need more folks like those that risked all on that mission so many years ago.

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/ckmec Kmeč

      In the end, or eventually, the good guys will always win. The Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict will be no different.

      • Ron Grant

        "In the end, or eventually, the good guys will always win. The Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict will be no different."

        As a supporter of the Palestinian people,I sure hope so.Muchiboy.

        • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/ckmec Kmeč

          No. The Israelis are the good guys. 1948, 56, 67 and 73 proved so. Why anybody would support genocidal Muslim terrorists is a mystery.

  • Grantman

    Dennis Prager had an article yesterday entitled, "World Opinion = Leftist Opinion." Very true words. Robert, you are exactly correct, Israel (and the West) must have an *actual* victory, not a negotiated victory. "World Opinion" has consistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory each and every time Israel goes against its foes. This must stop.

    Link to Prager: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/07/one-world-one-

  • http://www.theird.org Faith McDonnell

    I have not forgotten. I believe that the raid on Entebbe was not only a wonderful victory for Israel, but a victory over evil forces, in the person of Idi Amin, given by G-D. I included the story of Operation Yonatan in my book, Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda's Children. And I agree with Grantman and Robert, victory, actual victory is needed badly. And with Sam, proud that the Good Guys won.

  • Sandi

    I so admire Israelis. Somehow, I have always felt proud of them.
    Israel could be counted on to 'take no sh*t from nobody ' – as exemplified at Entebbe. Whoever crossed the Israelis could only look forward to coming off second best. The very definition of uncompromising was Israel, and the definition of tough was Israelis. When the PC brigade took over it all went pear-shaped and Israel was weakened but not, I suspect, Israelis.
    I hope I am right when I believe that I see stirrings of the old Israel coming to the fore once again. I certainly hope so. Its very survival depends on it.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    I lived in Los Angeles in 1976 and was overwhelmed by the rescue at Entebbe. It played out like a perfect action movie. The next day the Hollywood trade magazines were filled with announcements by several producers and directors that they would make a film on that event. A film takes a year to produce. I felt the event should be commemorated more immediately and I put my impressions on paper in rhyme. The world, at the time, suffered from a number of skyjackings and terrorist attacks and no country retaliated except little bitty Israel. A whole generation of Israelis has been born and matured since then and many of them may not even be aware of that fantastic, heroic rescue. In my poem I stated "That little bitty country showed us how," but we didn't learn.

    That Little Bitty Country Showed Us How C. 1976

    I’d been wondering what had happened to our world
    As if someone turned it upside down and got it all unfurled
    Any bum who had a gun could have his day
    And all the sheep in leader’s clothes would look the other way

    But that little bitty country showed us how
    You don’t talk to bullies, you don’t bow
    You move like a man and you mow’em down
    The Rescue at Entebbe is renowned

    The bullies with their guns took the plane
    They had grenades and acted bold with blazing eyes, insane,
    The innocent a board were bound for France
    They had no chance

    But that little bitty country showed us how
    You don’t talk to bullies, you don’t bow
    You move like a man and you mow’em down
    The Rescue at Entebbe is renowned

    The bullies made demands, acted tough
    A hundred souls they herded in a hanger, handled rough
    With not a friend between, a thousand leagues away
    That little bitty country decided what to do that day

    Yes that little bitty country showed us how
    You don’t talk to bullies, you don’t bow
    You move like a man and you mow’em down
    The Rescue at Entebbe is renowned

    Across the sea we celebrated in the sun
    200 years since we had dealt with bullies and had won
    While we rejoiced and waved our flags, they flew their planes at night
    They did what seemed impossible, they saved their kin; they won their fight…
    That little bitty country showed us how.

    • chris jones

      You wrote that in '76? Outstanding!

  • USMCSniper

    The greatest of all virtues is courage, because it is the virtue one must possess in order to preserve all others. Israel must walk a fine line as she is very heavily dependent on the United States to actively prevent Iran from acquiring operational nuclear weapons, which the Iranians will use against Israel once they get them. It is the United States, particularly the politicians with an emphasis on the Obama administration that are forcing the Palestinian agenda on Israel because of EU and the Arab Muslim states pressure. What the United States does to back Israel prevent prevent Iran from acquiring operational nuclear weapons and if Iran acquires operational nuclear weapons is going to be a test of American courage more than it is of Israeli courage. The courage to say it and mean it – NEVER AGAIN is all Israel needs as a guideline to eliminate the threat.

    • Ron Grant

      "The greatest of all virtues is courage"

      Maybe,maybe not.The Palestinian terrorists,be they suicide bombers or mere gunmen armed with AK's and grenades do not lack courage.They have the courage to die or be killed for their acts and they know this. Moral integrity,maybe,but not courage.Try wisdom,goodness,charity,etc.Muchiboy

      • MixMike

        "The Palestinian terrorists,be they suicide bombers or mere gunmen armed with AK's and grenades do not lack courage."

        Strange that you describe terrorists that use women and children as human shields as courageous. Even stranger, these same terrorists deliberately target soft civilian targets, and that is somehow courageous?

        • Ron Grant

          "and that is somehow courageous?"

          The courage is in the dying,not the killing,Mike.I think I addressed the immorality of the suicide bomber's act.
          I think I am correct in saying that a soldiers biggest fear is death or dismemberment.Ever been in a minefield?
          Strapping a suicide vest to oneself and detonating it compares to the minefield,I suspect.Still,I get your point.Muchiboy

          • MixMike

            "Ever been in a minefield?"

            Surprisingly yes, thankfully there were fences and a clear path to keep everyone safe.

          • Ron Grant

            "fences and a clear path to keep everyone safe."

            You're never safe in a minefield,Mike.I was medic for sappers maintaining a minefield along the Mozambique border.Rain,soft earth,time,laziness or fatigue on the part of a sapper,worse late afternoon under a hot African sun,East German sappers breaching our minefield and f…king with our grid.Even sabotage by our trusted own.God bless the sappers.Muchiboy

    • Ron Grant

      " prevent Iran from acquiring operational nuclear weapons, which the Iranians will use against Israel once they get them."

      Firstly,it is only fair that Iran or another enemy of Israel be allowed to develop or hold tactical nukes.After all,Israel has them.
      Secondly,only twice has a country used such weapons against it's foes.Amerikka!
      Now,some regimes may be foolish enough to attack it's enemy with nukes.We have good reason to question the motives if not the sanity of N.Korea for example.And would Israel be above using such tactical weapons if it's survival was at stake?Now Iran has a long history of civilization and is far from being unstable or evil.
      With Iran in possession of a nuclear arsenal Israel may be more inclined to make the needed concessions to the Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace.Who knows?Muchiboy

      • MixMike

        "Firstly,it is only fair that Iran or another enemy of Israel be allowed to develop or hold tactical nukes.After all,Israel has them."

        Wrong. Israel is a democracy characterized by "accountability, checks and balances, and recognition of fundamental human rights." Israel uses its "nuclear weapons" (although never confirmed) as a deterrent from attack. Iran is a "pure theocracy" with "institutionalized dhimmitude." Iran is overtly antisemitic, anti-western and anti-human rights (death sentence for homosexuality, and hangs 'promiscuous' teenage girls in public squares). Iran wants to use its nuclear weapons to agitate conflict and instigate war. Iran has made the entire middle east unstable by "providing financial aid, arms, training camps, and safe haven to the deadliest terror groups ― Hezbollah (Iran's proxy in Lebanon), Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." The mullahs have been calling for Israel's destruction (and another Holocaust) since 1979.

        "With Iran in possession of a nuclear arsenal Israel may be more inclined to make the needed concessions to the Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace."

        Ron you have absolutely no concept of how international politics work. You should really quit before you make yourself look even dumber than you already have. Israel has always tried to make peace with the Palestinians. Don't forget the peace initiatives in 1993 and 2000. Israel unilaterally made painful concessions in 2005 by pulling out of Gaza. None of these actions were due to outside military threats. A nuclear Iran would give Israel less incentive to make peace.

        • Ron Grant

          "Israel has always tried to make peace with the Palestinians"

          We just have to agree to disagree,Mike.Muchiboy

          • MixMike

            Ahem, 1979, 1993, 2000, 2005… need I really go on?

          • Ron Grant

            " Ahem, 1979, 1993, 2000, 2005… need I really go on?"

            Given the occupation of Palestine by European Jews and the continued oppression of the Palestinian people any settlement and peace offer by Israel must be generous and magnanimous.To date ,we have seen nothing but nickel-and-diming on the part of the Zionists.To quote a descriptive term you seem to find useful,perhaps the true color of the Jews is reveled here.Please prove me wrong,Mike.Muchiboy

          • MixMike

            "any settlement and peace offer by Israel must be generous and magnanimous."

            In 1979 Israel gave back the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt for peace.

            In 1993 Israel agreed to peace with the Palestinians at the Oslo accords. How was Israel thanked? Suicide and bus bombings.

            In 2000 Israel offered all of Gaza and 95% of the W. Bank to the Palestinians for peace. Arafat walked away from Peace negotiations and didn't even make a counter-offer. Even the Saudi prince Bandar recognized that the Palestinians were walking away from Peace. Israel was thanked for the offer with the 2nd intifada.

            In 2005 Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza. Israel was thanked with the election of Hamas and a constant rain of thousands upon thousands of rockets aimed at its civilian centers.

            You can make vague accusations that Israel is nickel-and-diming (no doubt a reference to Jews being cheap) the Palestinians, but you have absolutely no facts to back your claims. The examples I offered above prove Israel has constantly made generous and magnanimous offers to the Palestinians. What have the Palestinians demonstrated to offer peace to Israel (terrorism and xenophobia don't qualify)?

            "To quote a descriptive term you seem to find useful,perhaps the true color of the Jews is reveled here."

            Gee, and you wonder why everyone thinks you're an anti-semite?

            "Please prove me wrong,Mike."

            Done and done, see above.

      • MixMike

        "Now Iran has a long history of civilization and is far from being unstable or evil. "

        Your ignorant comment is especially laughable in light of the most recent human rights violations in Iran:
        http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/08/iran-sche

        But of course the Mullah's aren't unstable or evil right?

  • Rob

    A few videos can be watched here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe#Ex

  • Phyllis Miller

    Judy,

    I just finished telling my friend, Heni, who is visiting from NJ how great you are. Heni just opened her e-mail and here you are–thought you would get a kick out of that.

    Phyllis

    • http://jerusalemdiaries.blogspot.com Judy

      Thanks, Phyllis!!

  • Ron Grant

    " “We say to the terrorists of today: we did it then and we can do it now if we want.”

    Good.And let us not forget the Zionist terrorists of yesterday,either i.e.Menachem Begin’s Urgun,Stern Gang.
    They can all go to hell,one and all.Muchiboy

    Terrorism is defined in a variety of ways. An interesting definition is put forward by the noted intellectual Noam Chomsky, who wrote: “There is another defining property of ‘terrorism’ in contemporary newspeak: it refers to violent acts by Them, not Us.”

    Another definition is when the men, women and children who are killed are Palestinians and the gunmen or pilots who murder them are Israelis. This form of terrorism is not terrorism, we are told, but mere retaliation, self-defence or what they may call ‘civilized terrorism.’

    The late professor Israel Shahak, a Holocaust survivor, and then chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, wrote: “There is nothing new in the fact that Israel is a terrorist state, which, almost from its inception, has used its intelligence service (the Mossad) to assassinate people on foreign soil with any violence or terror it considers necessary for its ends.”
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1001/S00591.htm

    Some interesting allegations:

    The first act of air piracy in the history of civil aviation was carried out by Israel, in Dec. 1954, when a civilian Syrian airliner was forced down in Tel Aviv and its passengers and crew held for days, despite international condemnation.

    In 1968, Israeli commandos blew up 13 civilian airliners at Beirut airport in Lebanon.

    The first deliberate shooting down a civilian airliner was carried out by Israel, when a Libyan airliner was shot down by Israeli jet fighters over Sinai, in Feb. 1973, on the direct orders of Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, killing all 107 of its passengers and the entire French crew.
    http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-terrorists-early-zion

    • MixMike

      "And let us not forget the Zionist terrorists of yesterday,either i.e.Menachem Begin’s Urgun,Stern Gang."

      Actually, the Irgun and Stern gang were formed to protect Jews in the region from rioting Arab mobs that were trying to murder Jews. Don't forget the Hebron massacre of 1929. Even still any alleged terrorism of the Irgun and Stern gang have nothing on the Arab and subsequent Palestinian terrorism.

      "Another definition is when the men, women and children who are killed are Palestinians and the gunmen or pilots who murder them are Israelis. This form of terrorism is not terrorism, we are told, but mere retaliation, self-defence or what they may call ‘civilized terrorism.’"

      Good let Chomsky do your talking, clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity to come up with your own original thoughts or arguments. As for terrorism, its quite simple: Palestinians define terrorism. Palestinians deliberately murder innocent Israeli civilians especially women and children (Palestinian gunmen on too many occasions have "bravely" gunned down Israeli kindergartens and school buses). Israelis kill terrorists. It is unfortunate when innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire, however if Hamas didn't use civilian enclaves as hideouts and use human shields, these unnecessary casualties could be completely avoided.

      "Some interesting allegations:"

      Well, I am glad that you finally just did it and linked jewwatch, a well known neo-nazi website that fabricates all sorts of fake allegations against Israel and Jews. Glad to see your true colors are once again coming to light.

  • Ron Grant

    What? The letter bomb invented by Jewish terrorists! Tell me it ain't so,FPM.Muchiboy

    June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

    September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)
    http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-terrorists-early-zion

    • MixMike

      Yep, another link to the well known neo-nazi website. Keep showing your true colors Ron.

      • Ron Grant

        "Yep, another link to the well known neo-nazi website. Keep showing your true colors Ron"

        Goggling "jewwatch review" does bring up some interesting red flags.Whatever its motives and connections,it does contain a lot of information useful to anti-Zionists like myself.I guess politics does make for "strange bedfellows",Mike.
        In defense of my using some of the information on jewwatch,I did goggle that information to access other independent sites in an attempt to verify the accusations quoted on jewwatch.It is another question entirely as to the motives and intentions of "jewwatch" in hosting such a multitude of anti Zionists facts or claims.While I may continue to access this site (it is difficult not to as it features so prominently in Google search) I will keep in mind the perhaps more sinister side to this site.To be fair,I have accessed pro Zionist sites and used them for my own purposes as well.There is a wealth of information on the net,and it behooves us all to be critical minded in the use of that material as well as the motives behind the scenes.Muchiboy

        • MixMike

          Wow, I think your post speaks for itself. I'll bet you also go to the KKK website to learn about African American History?

  • Ron Grant

    "protected by the arms of democracies "

    In my book Israel does not qualify as a democracy as long as the Palestinian diaspora are denied their homeland and birthright.Muchiboy

    • MixMike

      I wonder what the Arab members of the Knesset think of that? Or the 1.5 million Arabs that vote and have equal rights under the law? Or even better, what about the gay Arabs that FLEE to Israel for sanctuary? Palestinians have a homeland, its called Jordan, get over it.

  • Ron Grant

    Attack on USS Cole Oct 2000 al-Qaeda:17 dead,39 injured

    Attack on USS Liberty June 1967 Israeli Air Force:34 dead,174 injured.

    Muchiboy

    • MixMike

      "Attack on USS Liberty June 1967 Israeli Air Force:34 dead,174 injured."

      The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an honest mistake, "largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967." There have been 10 official US investigations and 3 official Israeli inquiries that have all "conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake" of friendly fire.

      Israel officially apologized for the tragedy and "paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the US and to the families of the victims." The matter was "officially closed" between the US and Israel "by an exchange of diplomatic notes" in 1987.

      Still, cases of “friendly fire” are quite common in wartime: In 1988, the U.S. Navy "mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians." In the first Gulf War, "35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by friendly fire.” In the war in Afghanistan there have been cases of friendly fire between American, Canadian and British forces. For example, "in April 2002, an American F-16 dropped a bomb that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan." Strangely enough, the day before the Liberty tragedy, "Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns." Of course no one bothers to to bring up these cases of friendly fire, only Israel is singled out for condemnation.

  • USMCSniper

    Ron Grant can not evade the fact that Israel has never threatened to wipe Iran or any other Arab Muslim nation off the face off the earth and kill every last Muslim, but Iran along with many other Muslim Arab states have openly threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and kill every last Jew. And the Arab Muslim states have tried it no less than 3 times with their armed forces, and constantly with their proxy terrorists, Hamas, Hezbolla, and the Palestinians. So there can be no moral equivalency even to Ron Grant unless he has a capacity for evasion that is almost infinitely elastic.

    • Kevin Bford

      Couldn't have said it better myself.

    • Ron Grant

      "Ron Grant can not evade the fact that Israel has never threatened to wipe Iran or any other Arab Muslim nation off the face off the earth.."

      Perhaps not,USMCSniper,but actions speak louder then words.In it's creation of "facts on the ground",Israel has effectively crushed the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.By denying the Palestinians their rightful homeland and birthright,Israel is guilty of wiping the ground with the Palestinians.In effect,Israel wiped the Palestinian nation from the face of Palestine.Shame on the survivors of the Holocaust who benefited from this crime.Shame on their descendants who perpetuate this crime.Shame on humanity for allowing and ignoring this crime.Muchiboy

      • MixMike

        "In it's creation of "facts on the ground",Israel has effectively crushed the national aspirations of the Palestinian people."

        Wrong again, Israel has actually helped to bolster the national aspirations of the Palestinians. Israel offered the Palestinians 95% of the W.Bank and all of Gaza to create their own country in 2000. Of course this was rejected without even a counter-offer by Arafat. It is very simple Ron, the Palestinians do not have national aspirations, their only aspiration is to murder Jews and wipe Israel off the map.

        "By denying the Palestinians their rightful homeland and birthright,Israel is guilty of wiping the ground with the Palestinians."

        Actually, I think you mean Jordan, which is guilty of denying Palestinians their rightful homeland and birthright.

        "In effect,Israel wiped the Palestinian nation from the face of Palestine."

        How does one wipe a fictitious people from a fictitious nation?

        "Shame on humanity for allowing and ignoring this crime."

        Shame on you for ignoring Palestinian terror, crime, murder and xenophobia to feed your own antisemitism.

        • Ron Grant

          "Shame on you for ignoring Palestinian terror, crime, murder and xenophobia to feed your own antisemitism."

          You need to recognize the difference between Antisemitism and anti-Zionism,Mike.It is a serious error.Even if you do,I doubt it will impact much on the argument for or against Israel.It mostly serves as a red herring and exposes the weakness of your position.Either you are very clever or very paranoid.I think the clue here should be that so many honest,bright and well meaning Jews take an anti-Zionist position.There will always be serious pros and cons here.Israel won't rise or fall on that assertion/assumption.You can do better then that,Mike.Muchiboy

          • MixMike

            "You need to recognize the difference between Antisemitism and anti-Zionism,Mike."

            Look no further than Natan Sharansky's 3D test:

            1) Demonization: When the Jewish state is being demonized

            2) Double standards: When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled for condemnation.

            3) Delegitimization: When Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world.

            If you meet any of the above 3 you have crossed over from legitimate criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

          • Ron Grant

            > If you meet any of the above 3 you have crossed over from legitimate criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

            Sharansky admits there are unique challenges when it comes to separating legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism generally.While his 3D criteria is useful and goes some way towards addressing this challenge,it is incomplete and falls short of a comprehensive and fail safe means of identifying his New Anti-Semitism or as I see it Neocon-Anti-Semitism.

            1) Demonization: When the Jewish state is being demonized.

            "blown out of all sensible proportion; "

            I fail to see how any sensible person,gentile or Jew,could characterize criticism of the denial of an occupied people i.e.the Palestinians, by Jews, their birthright and homeland as "out of proportion".Ethnic cleansing is inhumane and unconscionable.The charge of demonization against the Zionist state stands.The fact that it's a Jewish state is your problem.
            However,there may well be other examples where Saransky's demonization criteria is legitimate and met.

            "when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel."

            Perhaps.But such comparisons are likely inescapable for their shock value alone and their impact on the Jewish psyche.I believe there is some legitimacy in comparing Israeli policy to South Africa's past policy of Apartheid.

            2) Double standards: When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled for condemnation.

            "When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers……………… this is anti-Semitism."

            Fair,no,but that does not necessarily reflect on the legitimacy of the criticism.That may be seen as a fault of the UN.The fact that it worked for you in the past i.e.UN Resolution 181,1947,only serves to re enforce your whining,self righteous, crybaby reputation.

            3) Delegitimization: When Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world.

            "when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism."

            Only because this was done at the expense of another people.Alone perhaps among all peoples in the world the Jews denied the Palestinian people their homeland and birthright so they could re-create their precious Jewish Zion.The charge of delegitimization stands. Go home or else let the Palestinians come home.

            Muchiboy

          • MixMike

            "Ethnic cleansing is inhumane and unconscionable.The charge of demonization against the Zionist state stands."

            Legitimate critique of the plight of Palestinians is acceptable. However, FALSE accusations of ethnic cleansing serve to inflame the senses and DEMONIZE the state of Israel as an extreme human rights abuser when the exact opposite is true. As I have proven time and time again, Israel does never engaged in ethnic cleansing and the Palestinian population has in fact increased exponentially as a result of a higher standard of living provided by Israel.

            "'when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.' Perhaps.But such comparisons are likely inescapable for their shock value alone and their impact on the Jewish psyche."

            The comparison is completely false and quite frankly offensive. The Nazis goal was "the systematic extermination of every Jew in Europe." Israel is seeking to build peace with the Palestinians. Over 1.5 million Arabs live as free and equal citizens in Israel. While Israel carries out anti-terror operations in W. Bank and Gaza, there is "no plan to persecute, exterminate, or expel the Palestinian people." Just look at the demography of the W. Bank and Gaza, the populations of exploded. From 1994-2004 the population of Gaza alone increased over 81%!

            "I believe there is some legitimacy in comparing Israeli policy to South Africa's past policy of Apartheid."

            There is no legitimacy in the comparison. In Israel, while Arabs are a MINORITY, they are still full citizens with equal rights under the law Arabs have served in the Knesset, the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, "black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed a majority." The government "dictated where they could live, work and travel." in South Africa, "the government killed blacks who protested against its policies." Whereas, in Israel Arab citizens are afforded "freedom of movement, assembly and speech" and all other equal rights under the law.

            The W. Bank and Gaza are a different story. Due to constant terrorism, Israel had to impose some restrictions on the Arab residents in those territories and engage in anti-terror operations. That said, the W. Bank and Gaza are not part of Israel proper and are essentially autonomous entities – and at times enemy states engaged in combat against Israel. In S. Africa, there were not two states at war, and the blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa (as the Palestinians do of Israel), only the apartheid regime.

            "Fair,no,but that does not necessarily reflect on the legitimacy of the criticism.That may be seen as a fault of the UN.The fact that it worked for you in the past i.e.UN Resolution 181,1947,only serves to re enforce your whining,self righteous, crybaby reputation."

            While the UN may have been instrumental in establishing the state of Israel it doesn't lessen my argument that Israel is not afforded the same rights of other nations and is singled out unfairly among the nations for condemnation.

            As for whining, self-righteous and crybaby reputation, that belongs to the Palestinians and Arab nations who cannot accept that tiny little Israel was able to defeat them and prevent the destruction of Israel. Perhaps if the Arabs would be less xenophobic and be accepting of a Jewish neighbor the conflict could finally come to an end.

            "Only because this was done at the expense of another people.Alone perhaps among all peoples in the world the Jews denied the Palestinian people their homeland and birthright so they could re-create their precious Jewish Zion."

            Wrong again as usual. As I have demonstrated before Israel was built on LEGALLY purchased VACANT and tenant-free land. The original partition gave the Jews a state in Jewish MAJORITY areas. OF course the Arabs rejected this and continue to whine and act like crybabies because they lost a war where they tried to annihilate the Jews.

            "Go home or else let the Palestinians come home."

            Is that you Ron or Helen Thomas?

          • Ron Grant

            " As I have proven time and time again, Israel does never engaged in ethnic cleansing and the Palestinian population has in fact increased "

            "Simply put, ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' ."[2] The idea in ethnic cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal."
            A 1993 United Nations Commission defined it more specifically as, "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous."[1] The term entered English and international media usage in the early 1990s to describe war events in the former Yugoslavia, particularly Kosovo and Bosnia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

            Given that I consider the re-creation of Israel as a special case of colonialism and that there has not been a Jewish majority there since the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Romans some 2000 years ago,the establishment of the Jewish state through occupation by tens and hundreds of thousands of European Jews resulting in the displacement of similar numbers of Palestinian farmers and townspeople constitutes effective ethnic cleansing when combined with the racist policy preventing the right of return of refugees.

            " Do Palestinian Refugees Have a Right to Return to Israel?
            by Ruth Lapidoth.

            1. General International Law

            Several international human rights treaties deal with the freedom of movement, including the right of return.1 The most universal provision is included in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

            "The question arises, who has the right of return, or: what kind of relationship must exist between the State and the person who wishes to return?"
            http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/peace%20process/guide%2

            Morally,and perhaps legally,there is a natural right of return of refugees to their homeland.How a Jew could argue against the right of return of Palestinians when they give the right of return to Jews anywhere and everywhere is simply outrageous and indefensible on any but the most selfish and mean spirited grounds.Furthermore,that Israel was created by and for refugees fleeing the Holocaust is the ultimate precedent for acknowledging the right of return for refugees.
            Muchiboy

          • MixMike

            "Given that I consider the re-creation of Israel as a special case of colonialism and that there has not been a Jewish majority there since the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Romans some 2000 years ago,the establishment of the Jewish state through occupation by tens and hundreds of thousands of European Jews resulting in the displacement of similar numbers of Palestinian farmers and townspeople constitutes effective ethnic cleansing when combined with the racist policy preventing the right of return of refugees."

            First of all, as I have proven before Israel does not engage in ethnic cleansing and can not even be considered a "special case of colonialism." Israel was built on legally purchased, vacant and tenant-free land. NO ARABS WERE DISPLACED by the Zionist endeavors prior to 1948. In fact, after the Jews built up the land and raised the standard of living, Arabs from surrounding regions flocked to the area. The Arabs that became the so-called Palestinians were newer to the land of Israel than most of the "European" Zionists.

            Still, the original UN Partition gave the Jews a country in the Jewish majority areas (which as I proved above were legally purchased and did not displace ANY Arabs). The Jews accepted this and the Arabs rejected it.

            The current refugee issue can be traced to the 1948 War of Independence. While there were some isolated cases of intimidation and Jews forcibly moving Arabs for security reasons, the vast majority of the Arabs WILLINGLY left their homes to allow the Arab armies a clear path to vanquish the Jews. It is important to point out that when Israel was established, the leaders BEGGED the Arabs to stay in their homes and become part of the new Jewish state and begged the Arab armies to make peace with tiny little Israel. Thus, Arabs willingly leaving their homes DOES NOT constitute ethnic cleansing under any moral or legal definition.

            Most of the cases of intimidation actually came from the Arab governments who were trying to agitate the native populations to "rise up" against the Jews. The Arab governments spread false reports of Jews committing massacres and atrocities to drum up support for the Arab cause (see the Dier Yassin hoax). Oddly enough the false reports had the opposite effect on the Arab populations who fled in fear rather than "joining in arms" against the Jews.

            The REAL ETHNIC CLEANSING occurred when the Arab countries expelled over 800,000 Jews from their countries. Looking at the numbers, Arab sources estimate that approximately 350,000-450,000 refugees were created in the war of 1948. In wars it is common for population exchanges. Thus an exchange 350,000 Arabs for 800,000 Jews is more than fair. Still, Israel offered to repatriate over 300,000 Arabs in 1950 but the Arab states rejected this. The statute of limitations on the Arabs claims have long expired.

            As your MFA article shows, "according to Palestinian sources, there are about 3.5 million Palestinian refugees nowadays registered with UNRWA. If Israel were to allow all of them to return to her territory, this would be an act of suicide on her part, and no state can be expected to destroy itself." The current right of return demands that not just the original Arabs be allowed to return but all of their descendants into perpetuity. Further, "the Palestinians do not have a right of return "under the international conventions, nor under the major UN resolutions, nor under the relevant agreements between the parties."

          • MixMike

            "Morally,and perhaps legally,there is a natural right of return of refugees to their homeland."

            See above, there is no legal precedent for the Palestinian right of return. There is no moral right either as the Palestinians who want to be repatriated are not even part of the original refugree group, but their descendants into perpetuity. Moreover, Israel offered to repatriate over 300,000 Arabs in 1950 and it was rejected – the Arabs had their chance and blew it.

            "How a Jew could argue against the right of return of Palestinians when they give the right of return to Jews anywhere and everywhere is simply outrageous and indefensible on any but the most selfish and mean spirited grounds."

            As usual, you don't understand the Jewish right of return under Israeli law. The right of return allows any Jew to immigrate to Israel but doesn't guarantee citizenship. Still, any person from any country (including Arabs/Palestinians) can apply to become a citizen of Israel through the naturalization process (just as in any other country).

            "Furthermore,that Israel was created by and for refugees fleeing the Holocaust is the ultimate precedent for acknowledging the right of return for refugees."

            Israel was created in despite the Holocaust. As I have previously proven, the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state started in the late 19th century. Israel was being built up and created as a state long before the Holocaust. The Holocaust merely helped to expedite the inevitable, which was the creation of Israel.

  • tim heekin

    I can't take credit for this. I heard Dick Morris say it, maybe he came up with it. Either way,
    "If the Arabs (Muslims) disarm there will be peace.
    If Israel dsiarms they will be slaughtered."

  • poetcomic1

    The Spirit of Entebbe died on the White House lawn with a handshake.

  • Ron Grant

    " clearly you don't have the intellectual capacity to come up with your own original thoughts or arguments."

    It's not a question of my intellectual capacity,Mike,but rather using sources and arguments outside my own biases.Such an approach serves to reinforce our own arguments.And really,Chomsky and Shahak say it so elegantly.

    "Even still any alleged terrorism of the Irgun and Stern gang have nothing on the Arab…"

    " Irgun and Stern gang have nothing on the Arab and subsequent Palestinian terrorism."

    OK.First we argue that all other human suffering pales in comparison to Jewish suffering and persecution.Now we argue that Zionist terrorism pales in comparison to Palestinian terrorism.I see a pattern developing here,Mike.

    Alleged? Many reliable sources apart from the likes of "jewwatch" consider Irgun and Stern gang as terrorists organizations.
    Muchiboy

  • Sabina

    It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.
    I'm not a Jew, I'm an American and a pro-Israel Christian.
    You have my permission to tell my government to go to blazes.
    Do what you have to do now, as you did so bravely then.

  • Dania Strohmayer

    Thankful you did not remain silent … God’s word reigns!

  • Ron Grant

    OLE! OLE! OLE!

    Muchiboy