Fuller-Bennet says describing a celebration for Israel's independence as "sexy" to be offensive, but it's clear that his real problem is with the mere existence of the state.

In today's terms, "sexy" equates to cool, modern and fun - all words that could certainly be used to describe Israel. Clearly, they could not describe the conflict aspect, but by that logic, no positive adjectives are valid. If the slogan read, "Sixty and Successful" or "Celebrating for Sixty" I still expect Fuller-Bennet, offended, would respond "How dare you celebrate?"

Yeah OBVIOUSLY criticizing Israel means to want its destruction... Dude this kind of logical fallacy only convinces people who do not spend enough time thinking

It was just simply a way for people to make sure that the full story is given ... its freedom of press and speech "that the sexy at sixty was endorsing in their little postcards," it was a silent and non-violent demonstration that aimed towards showing that there are people who would consider these 60 yrs and that date to be a time of disappointments.

Still, when you hold Israel to a standard that you don't hold other countries to, that's anti-Semitic. More specifically, according to many bodies including, most officially, the EU, it's "new anti-Semitism," attacking the State of Israel in ways you don't attack other states, essentially because you discriminate against it.

Every country has negative aspects to its history. The US has Amerindians and slavery; China has political oppression and forced abortion; Egypt has oppression of every kind; Saudi Arabia has more problems than I can name resulting from the dominance of extreme religious law for most of the last century that has led to public beheadings, stonings, and women treated with less respect than most livestock.

And yet I don't think anybody would be offended if a group of people from one of those countries held a celebration of Egyptian, Chinese, Saudi, or American culture and called it "Sexy at 250," "China: Damn Awesome," or "I Love America Week." I can't imagine people objecting if Saudi or Jordanian or Iranian/"Persian" students on campus decided to hold celebrations for their respective countries' culture.

That's what we call a double standard. "Sexy at sixty" is celebrating Israel's existence as a state, not any of its policies or its displacement of Palestinians. Protesting Israel's birthday is almost exactly protesting its right to exist. At any rate, objecting to the "Sexy at sixty" slogan is, most generously, just silly, and probably something closer to "new" anti-Semitism.

I'm a Jew and an Israeli citizen who has lived in Jerusalem for years of my life, but I'm not in any way offended when people want to celebrate Muslim culture, even though the 9/11 terrorists and the thousands of terrorists attacking Israel in the last few decades have been Muslim. That's because I can separate the issue of Islam from terrorism. By the same token, not being able to separate a celebration of Israel's independence from the Israeli-Palestinian issue is anti-Semitic. Protesting Israel's birthday crosses the exact same line that would be crossed if I protested all of the Muslim Students Association's events because I object to what some Muslims do.

If people persist in attacking these kind of events, I think they have to also protest any celebration that positively references any country with any checkered history -- including the United States, every Arab state, and let's be honest every state in existence. If they aren't willing to meet that standard then it is they who have committed the "logical fallacies" that the commenter above seems to abhor, and I have absolutely no problem calling them what they are: anti-Semites.

I just hope that people will be able to distinguish Israel and Israelis from the suffering of the Palestinian people. Otherwise I see very little reason that I've been giving all these Muslims around campus the benefit of the doubt and supporting their expressions of pride since 19 of their co-religionists attacked my home country on Sept. 11, 2001. I am sickened by the soft anti-Semitism of Thursday's protesters.

"Still, when you hold Israel to a standard that you don't hold other countries to, that's anti-Semitic."

Ridiculous. That's the most blanket use of the term anti-Semitic I have ever seen and it completely kills any chance at dialogue with you, to be honest. We hold China to a different standard than we do other countries, don't we? So are we racist for that? Come on. You seem like an educated person, there is no reason for such generalizations.

"And yet I don't think anybody would be offended if a group of people from one of those countries held a celebration of Egyptian, Chinese, Saudi, or American culture and called it "Sexy at 250," "China: Damn Awesome," or "I Love America Week." I can't imagine people objecting if Saudi or Jordanian or Iranian/"Persian" students on campus decided to hold celebrations for their respective countries' culture."

It comes down to a few things, and I do think you are wrong on your points here. The article says: "There was free food, hookah and a moon bounce." Now, please tell me, first of all, whether this is then a celebration of Israeli (not necessarily Jewish) culture? A moon bounce? Unfortunately, Israel's identity is intricately linked with its Judaism - any celebration of its culture will inevitably be religious. Perhaps if GIA had organized more culturally-specific events that highlight Israeli dance, etc., this wouldn't look so simple to me. Moreover, your argument would be strengthened if you said that the Chinese or Saudi or American NATION would be celebrated, not just culture. These are two very different things that you are overlooking (and then using it to make your anti-Semitic argument). Something tells me that we wouldn't be seeing many people celebrating the Chinese nation and its government today, given what has been going on in Tibet.

""Sexy at sixty" is celebrating Israel's existence as a state, not any of its policies or its displacement of Palestinians. Protesting Israel's birthday is almost exactly protesting its right to exist."

But don't you see that those two facts are very linked? Forget whether or not what the protesters did was truly right (I think that while Israel has a right to exist, many people in that region on both sides have made very poor decisions over the last 60 years. There should be a Palestinian state, and Jerusalem should be an international city, not the Israeli capital). And this is not simply protesting Israel's birthday. I'd say it is more protesting AT Israel's birthday, just like the Olympic torch protesters aren't protesting the Olympics but the Olympics IN China. Difference.

"By the same token, not being able to separate a celebration of Israel's independence from the Israeli-Palestinian issue is anti-Semitic. Protesting Israel's birthday crosses the exact same line that would be crossed if I protested all of the Muslim Students Association's events because I object to what some Muslims do."

Nope, sorry. I'd say my major problem is that you fully believe in this concept of new anti-Semitism that is functioning as a cushion for those who feel that there is too much criticism against Israel and its policies (not necessarily Judaism...more Zionism). And your analogy isn't really apt, since there is no "Muslim" home state, they are all quite different, as are the Muslim cultures from state to state. I'm not sitting here advocating you not to protest certain policies and governments, but there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between Jewish people in the US and Jewish people in Israel and other countries.

"I think they have to also protest any celebration that positively references any country with any checkered history -- including the United States, every Arab state, and let's be honest every state in existence. If they aren't willing to meet that standard then it is they who have committed the "logical fallacies" that the commenter above seems to abhor, and I have absolutely no problem calling them what they are: anti-Semites."

And there are people who do. But come on, do you expect every person to protest every thing? These are very poor generalizations and demands. What you seem to want is that Israel is completely free from criticism because people will not criticize every other thing. It's not possible, nor is it reasonable. These people aren't anti-Semites, they are anti-Israel. That difference is lost in your argument and that of your so-called "new anti-Semitism."

Of course, all nations have checkered histories. The treatment of Amerindians in this country, from the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth rock through to the present day, is a disgraceful stain on America's story. Unfortunately there were almost no empowered, white Americans who objected vocally to this process before the 1960's. As a result, the people who inhabited this land for thousands of years have been reduced to a tiny minority who live, in many cases, on impoverished reservation lands.
In South Africa, immigrant Europeans attempted to administer a similar fate to that land's native residents. International action, protest and moral objection helped to make sure this was not possible.
The fact is that in Israel the dispossession of the historic inhabitants of the country is both a relatively recent phenomenon (when compared to the Amerindians) and still very much occurring as settlements are solidified and expanded in the West Bank. It is for this reason that I protest; because the example of South Africa indicates that international pressure, based on objective and universal moral concern, can change the actions of a state that attempts to enforce an apartheid system within its borders.
One final note: I am half Jewish; my father was bar mitzvahed and I have attended many a Seder and lit many a Hannukah candle. So, if anyone feels the need to belittle my principled act of protest with a simplifying and inflammatory adjective, please, make it "self-hating," not "anti-semitic."

To GC:

I would refer you first to Wikipedia's page on New anti-Semitism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism ) not because Wiki is a reliable source but because it does a decent job summarizing the issue and points you to a lot of different sources.

The term new anti-Semitism is not something I came up with, or that is being used by Zionists to discredit Israel's critics; in fact, any discussion of new anti-Semitism begins by saying that there ARE legitimate criticisms of Israel, but that when they use defamation, denial, or double standards (the most common), they become anti-Semitic. Furthermore as I said this term isn't used by Zionists but has been accepted by the academic community and is so far most codified by the European Union -- not exactly known to be a pro-Israeli organization.

GC, you make some points that we could debate and disagree on in good conscience. For example, you try to confound the issue of Israeli culture and Judaism (I'm not sure why, but it makes it sound like it's Judaism you're objecting to and not Israeli culture, which quite frankly makes you seem MORE anti-Semitic). You also try to link Israel's independence with the oppression of Palestinians, but for some reason seem to accept any difference between the two or, you seem to imply, any legitimate celebration for the creation of Israel without automatically celebrating Palestinian plight. I agree with you that they are closely linked, but they are not the same, and essentially your argument boils down to this: Israel's creation IS the displacement of Palestinians, and therefore Israel has no right to exist. I fail to see how you can recognize Israel's right to exist if you link its very origin to Palestinian oppression.

Anyway, reasonable people can disagree on all those points, and I expect you shall.

However I think that both GC and Harald miss a crucial element of my argument and the argument that the protest was an example, or very close to being a thoughtless trespass onto, new anti-Semitism. GC comes dangerously close to old-fashioned anti-Semitism, by the way, in his discussion of linking Israel and Judaism and the idea of protesting Judaism without protesting Israel (??).

The point is, you wouldn't protest a celebration of Iranian, Saudi, Afghani, or American culture. And if you actually attended the Sexy at Sixty celebration you'd have seen that it included food common in Israel, houkah which is popular in Israel, and many posters and displays with information about Israeli culture, arts, crafts, science, history, et cetera.

Protesting that event IS essentially refusing to allow for a difference between the existence of the state of Israel and its culture and religion, and the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It IS like me protesting events of the Muslim Students Association because Muslims attacked the US on Sept. 11, or because some extremist regimes impose horrors on their own people. The willful confusion between Israel's birthday/a celebration of its culture and the oppression of the Palestinians is just unsettling.

And furthermore, I'm not saying that everyone must protest everything -- I'm saying that one should only protest something against one thing that they'd be equally willing to protest against another. If you're going to protest North Korea's oppression of its own people, you should also be willing in theory to protest Saudi Arabia's. If you're willing to protest a celebration of Israeli culture, then you should also be willing to protest a celebration of Persian, Saudi, Egyptian, or any other country's culture that has similar or worse human rights violations as Israel. Truth is I can't see any of these other events ever getting protested because none of those countries are seen as single-issue countries, and because the world at large accepts their existence as a separate issue from their crimes, even though their crimes are as bad or worse. Why then isn't the same privilege given to Israel?

But of course we don't picket those other events. We don't blame Muslims at Georgetown for the 9/11 terrorists, we don't picket their events, and if we did then we'd be rightly called Islamophobes. There's nothing in any way wrong then when I call those who picketed the event either intentional or accidental anti-Semites. Oops! You held Israel to a different standard, and I understand why because soft anti-Semitism is SO prevalent in our culture that it's almost easy to forget it exists -- after all, it's the world's longest-running hatred. But is it so wrong to point out that Israel is treated differently from other countries when students celebrating its independence (which incidentally immediately preceded a genocidal war by multiple Arab states) are picketed just because they're Israeli and Jewish? I don't picket the Chinese Student Association Ball because I don't see the relationship between that event and China's oppressive regime. Similarly I can't for the life of me accept that Israel=evil and must be picketed at every opportunity in the simplistic way implied by Thursday's protesters. I'm all for legitimately criticizing Israel; I do so myself very often. But Thursday's event was the wrong target, probably chosen as a kneejerk reaction without thinking about the meaning of it because, let's face it, it's easy for all of us to assume that anything Israeli will get protested no matter what or where it is. But protesting that event was as wrong a target as if I protested some of the MSA's or CSA's or PSA's events. It's the degree to which this soft and accidental anti-Semitism is just accepted unquestioningly that truly shocks me.

To Still; I wouldn't call you a self-hater because you're not a Jew. If your mother is not Jewish than neither are you. You're just a Gentile with a liberal secular Jewish father.

Your ignorance about Israel and Judaism is astounding but I'm not surprised coming from a product of intermarriage.

Ancient Israel was born thousands of years ago. It was destroyed by the Romans who re-named it Palestine. This term has no connection to the Arabs. Jews were always called Palestinians until the Arabs stole the the name.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PALESTINIAN COUNTRY, PEOPLE, LANGUAGE, OR CULTURE. The Arabs who fraudently call themselves Palis are indigenous to historical Arabia and not Israel.

Jews are the indigenous inhabitants of Israel. Millions of Arabs are occupying Jewish land in several countries. Jordan was carved out of ancient Israel. Arabs are the occupiers.

There is no apartheid in Israel. Arabs live in Israel with rights and privileges. The Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza are under Arab rule.

The only settlements in Israel are Arab ones. It's ridicoulous to call Jewish towns settlements since IT'S THEIR LAND! That's like calling Native American Indian towns in America settlements.

The land of Israel belongs to the Jews!

I'm not even going to dignify the post above mine with a response. I truly hope that it is sarcasm (and clearly directed to Harald and not Still), because dear God...THAT is the problem with any reasoned discussion of the issues.

STILL (and I thank you for being levelheaded): Even if it is accepted by scholarly institutions, it doesn't mean I'm going to agree with the term new anti-Semitism. I think that it distills the argument significantly. And I never accused you of creating it; I did look it up on Wiki before (:-p) just to see a little of what it was referring to.

"For example, you try to confound the issue of Israeli culture and Judaism (I'm not sure why, but it makes it sound like it's Judaism you're objecting to and not Israeli culture, which quite frankly makes you seem MORE anti-Semitic)."

You misunderstand, and I apologize because that was probably a result of my haste in writing earlier. I'm not objecting to the religion at all; I'm saying that Judiasm and the Israeli identity are much more linked than say American culture and a certain religion. Therefore, I think people jump the gun on using the term anti-Semitic, because IMO it has more to do with religion rather than the state. Unfortunately, we mix the two a lot more when discussing Israel proper.

"You also try to link Israel's independence with the oppression of Palestinians, but for some reason seem to accept any difference between the two or, you seem to imply, any legitimate celebration for the creation of Israel without automatically celebrating Palestinian plight. I agree with you that they are closely linked, but they are not the same, and essentially your argument boils down to this: Israel's creation IS the displacement of Palestinians, and therefore Israel has no right to exist. I fail to see how you can recognize Israel's right to exist if you link its very origin to Palestinian oppression."

Where did I ever write that? I do not believe that every Israeli celebration must be intertwined with something to do with Palestine; that is the distinction I was trying to make. Celebrate Israeli CULTURE and the Palestinian issue has no place. Start discussing the Israeli state and Palestinian will be a focal point. I also said that Israel has a right to exist, but so does a Palestinian state. Fact is, there is Palestinian oppression, but no, their terrorist actions are wrong. You're trying to stretch my argument too far.

"GC comes dangerously close to old-fashioned anti-Semitism, by the way, in his discussion of linking Israel and Judaism and the idea of protesting Judaism without protesting Israel"

You've entirely lost me here. My entire post was trying to create the difference between Judaism and Israel when it comes to talking about anti-Semitism (my "old fashioned" interpretation of it). I have NOTHING against the Jewish religion. I've been to a few Passover celebrations (the Sadr? Pardon my ignorance on the terminology, it's been a while) and plenty of Bar Mitzvahs, etc. Half my high school was Jewish. My issues personally lie with the politics in the region, on both sides. Protest Israeli policies, do not protest Judaism. That is my opinion, full stop.

"I'm saying that one should only protest something against one thing that they'd be equally willing to protest against another. If you're going to protest North Korea's oppression of its own people, you should also be willing in theory to protest Saudi Arabia's. If you're willing to protest a celebration of Israeli culture, then you should also be willing to protest a celebration of Persian, Saudi, Egyptian, or any other country's culture that has similar or worse human rights violations as Israel."

I'd bet that plenty of these people are protesting both. I was in London a few weeks ago on the anniversary of the Iraq War and they had a massive protest that was truly about every possible thing in the world, and I, to be honest, was appalled at some of the positions people were taking. But that's not the point; the point is that it is more than likely many protesters have issues with multiple nations, here we are simply seeing the manifestation in one issue.
And again, I question exactly what GIA was trying to do to represent Israeli culture with its celebration here. A moon bounce does not represent Israel, nor would I say does hookah. If it was Israeli dance, etc. -- that is a different and I would disagree with the poster because its placement would be inappropriate. Harald would have to clarify for me his position on that situation.

"Truth is I can't see any of these other events ever getting protested because none of those countries are seen as single-issue countries, and because the world at large accepts their existence as a separate issue from their crimes, even though their crimes are as bad or worse. Why then isn't the same privilege given to Israel?"

Where is China getting the same privilege? The Tibet issue is a firestorm right now, I'd say moreso than even Israel at least in the news media. The coverage I've seen on Israel's birthday has been minimal at best. And since we see less celebrations of Saudi culture here (and even less so the language), you can't really make it a point. We had discussions about this, obviously, when some Congressmen disapproved of the Saudi Prince's gift to Georgetown. You're expanding your interpretation of my argument too much in order to make the point, in my opinion.

In the end, I'm sorry that you felt insulted; you obviously have great pride in your homeland and that's fully allowed. You're allowed to raise your voice against people who speak against it. But those people are also allowed to disagree. And I really would suggest that you distinguish between culture and politics more, because that is the core difference in our little discussion here. It might have been solved if GIA had done a better job in defining what its celebration was trying to demonstrate (culture over simply the existence of the nation).

GC,

You assume I hold Israel to a special standard. Upon what basis do you make this assumption? Do you know what I protest? Do you know that I vigorously attacked the Egyptian Ambassador in a public forum? Do you know that I have criticized Syria's ambassador for just making excuses for political oppression? Do you know that I have organized against the occupation of Iraq since before it began or published op-eds attacking the US for using and justifying the use of torture? Do you have any idea who I or my colleagues are? Of course you don't.

Is Israel held to a special standard? Yes. It is held to an especially low standard. It is laying siege to the people in the Gaza strip because some people living there fire homemade rockets at Sderot and the US calls this collective punishment "self-defense." It places people in a cage (Gaza) and wonders what could be causing "radicalization." The simple answer is four decades of occupation. Yet, Israel prefers to argue it is due to some essential anti-Semitism. In the history of the modern world one cannot find an occupation that did not encounter resistance to it. The attacks on civilians are not unique to Palestinians. Settler occupations have consistently brought in reaction brutal acts of violence. This can be seen in the attacks of the FLN against the European settlers of Algeria and the ANC's attacks on settler farmers in the struggle against apartheid rule there. Do I agree with attacks against civilians? No. That does not mean that I suffer any illusions as to who is responsible for the violence. The violence of the occupation produces the violence of resistance.

We ask the Palestinians to observe the rules of war and decry their attacks on civilians. The rules of war are one part of international law. Another part calls for popular sovereignty and does not tolerate colonial occupation (before complaining of my use of the word colonial I suggest you read the writings of Israel's founders who referred to their settlements as colonial). Yet, while we cut off supplies to Palestinians and cut aid for their violations of international law. We provide the more powerful party, the occupier, Israel with billions of dollars annually in aid. All while Israel has a per capita income comparable to Spain.

Moreover as for the "much worse" states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the area of rights violations that entirely depends on what you're referring to. If we're speaking about the treatment of citizens, Israel is certainly the best behaved of the three. However, the protest wasn't about Israeli citizens. It was about a group of people, of nearly equal size, who live under siege and military occupation and have suffered under that occupation for decades. I would much rather live under the authoritarian rule of Egypt or Saudi Arabia than under Israeli military occupation. When it comes to the treatment of Palestinians Israel is by far and away a far more horrifying violator of human rights than either Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

This "new anti-Semitism" which was written about by the EU is simply absurd. Are there anti-Semitic supporters of Palestinians? Yes. There are also anti-Semitic supporters of Israelis. Much of the Christian right who support Israel do so for anti-Semitic reasons in the hope that a Jewish anti-Christ will bring about the apocalypse and Jews will have to renounce their faith or be denied salvation. Yet, anti-Semitic supporters of Israel have been invited to Israel and given awards in recognition of their support.

The new anti-Semitism thesis is a throw away way to attack critics of Israel who are fully justified in their critique. Moreover, I consider occupying a people to be a particularly egregious crime. I regularly protest the US occupation of Iraq of 5 years and I regularly protest the Israeli occupation of Palestine which has lasted 41 years.

Tim,
Just to clarify, were you speaking to me or STILL? I think you got us confused, since I have been arguing against Still most of the time...
The confusion seems to be happening a few times here -perhaps the Hoya can make the comments system a little clearer as to who is posting?

Sorry GC,

My original comments were directed towards "STILL." My mistake. Thanks for your support.

Best,
Tim

Just one thought on the "consistency" issue. I personally find any celebration of a country founded on ethnic cleansing that doesn't acknowledge that openly and publicly to be offensive. That is why I regularly support protests of "Thanksgiving" organized by native americans.

As someone already mentioned, it is quite extraordinary that people can just assume that anyone protesting Israeli crimes never protests anyone else, and then accuse them of anti-semitism on the basis of that assumption.

Mark Lance

GC,

I would hardly say that Israel's 60th anniversary (which, by the way, is not until next month - the hoya's writers should do a bit more research before sitting down to write) was "marked" by party and protest. I attended the event and saw hundreds of students and faculty, yet only about 20-25 demonstrators. Giving them both equal weight only shows the bias in this article.

As someone not affiliated with GIA or Jewish groups on campus, I saw the event as being a celebration of Israel's culture and achievements. There was info on art, technology, music, religious diversity, education, and environment - as well as great middle-eastern food.

As for the moon bounce, let's not be petty now. Perhaps the attraction is not deeply rooted in Israel's culture or history, but how does that take away from the meaning or validity of the event's purpose?

Finally, please don't say that even your double standards and clear bias simply cannot make you "softly" anti-semitic just because you went to a couple of bar-mitzvahs. Think about that for a minute. Having gone to a high school with some Jewish students doesn't prove anything... (that would be like arguing that you couldn't possibly be racist just because you went to school with some African American students!)

"I would hardly say that Israel's 60th anniversary (which, by the way, is not until next month - the hoya's writers should do a bit more research before sitting down to write) was "marked" by party and protest. I attended the event and saw hundreds of students and faculty, yet only about 20-25 demonstrators. Giving them both equal weight only shows the bias in this article."

Fair enough. I wasn´t there, so I am only going off what is in the article, which yes, admittedly could be a lot better written.

"As someone not affiliated with GIA or Jewish groups on campus, I saw the event as being a celebration of Israel's culture and achievements. There was info on art, technology, music, religious diversity, education, and environment - as well as great middle-eastern food.

As for the moon bounce, let's not be petty now. Perhaps the attraction is not deeply rooted in Israel's culture or history, but how does that take away from the meaning or validity of the event's purpose?"

Again, the article would be much better written if it included THAT information. I apolgize for my misunderstandings of the exact events, but the HOYA has more to do with that than my "pettiness."

If it was solely what the article mentioned, then it´s different, and I think we can agree. Thus, I recognize that if the event was more culturally rooted, the protest was in bad taste. I´m not naive.

"Finally, please don't say that even your double standards and clear bias simply cannot make you "softly" anti-semitic just because you went to a couple of bar-mitzvahs. Think about that for a minute. Having gone to a high school with some Jewish students doesn't prove anything... (that would be like arguing that you couldn't possibly be racist just because you went to school with some African American students!)"

What double standards or bias? How am I biased? I don´t agree with Israeli policies. I have no issue with the religion. I have never insulted it, nor have I ever spoken badly of friends who are Jewish or of Israeli origin. I tossed that example out not to diminish the argument, but to clarify that I am not approaching this from any sort of religious bias (I am by no means a practicing Christian). Perhaps it doesn´t prove anything, and simple words here don´t do enough, but I¨d say that you could accuse me of being anti-Semitic if I refused to interact with people with Jewish or Israeli heritage, if I criticized only Israel, etc. I do not. So don´t accuse me of it.

your comments are really silly saying palestininans had no country, people, language or culture!!!! I don't think anyone believes you, the world knows that palestine is occupied by terrorist Israelis who were kicked out from every country in the world because no one could stand them! and we palestinianians had to suffer ever since you came to our land, stole our country, killed and imprisoned our people, you couldn't destroy the language and trying to steal the culture... can you please tell me what your culture is? you even had to steal the food and sell it as Isreali cause you had nothing to offer ( Hummus and falafel) !!! NOTHING
ISRAEL HAS NO CULTURE (Israelis did not merge from one place, France, U.S, Holland, Germany, Russia..... can you please tell me which culture is the Israeli one????) when i go visit and see Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, i really feel sorry for you, you don't find a group of people speaking the same language!!!!!! some are speaking Russian, some are speaking french, some are speaking american, some are speaking hebrew!!! well let me tell you, you don't find that in palestine, or any other arab state.

The world knows that this is not your country, you are settlers, killers and terrorists in a country that will never be yours!

i just want to add one thing, and i'm sorry if it's already been said:
since Israel has been "the largest total recipient [of direct economic and military assistance from the United States]since WWII," (wikipedia- take it or leave it, i suspect that can be easily 'verified')I feel that as a US citizen, who will soon be paying taxes to the same US government which consistently directs so much economic and military aid to Israel, I have the right to object to actions of the ISRAELI STATE (not its citizens, per se).
without said objection, i would be implicitly supporting Israel's use of heavily US-funded resources and arms, which i cannot do, as i agree whole-heartedly with tim that though attacks against civilians are not right, "The violence of the occupation produces the violence of resistance."

Just some clarification on economics and history:

Israel is not the largest recipient of US foreign aid. According to CRS (Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress), Iraq is currently the largest recipient of US foreign aid--nearly 10x greater than the amount of aid given to Israel. Egypt receives only slightly less aid than Israel. Also, American military aid to Israel comes in different forms, including grants, special project allocations and loans. Approximately 75% of this aid is spent in the United States, providing American jobs, buttressing the American defense industry, and generating economic growth.

While it is true that Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, U.S. economic grants to Israel began in 1951 and ended in 1959. When Congress voted in 1951 to help Israel cope with the economic burdens imposed by the influx of Jewish refugees from the displaced persons camps in Europe and from the ghettos of the Arab countries, Arabs complained the U.S. was neglecting them. In truth, they had no interest in or use for American aid then. In 1951, Syria rejected offers of U.S. aid. Oil-rich Iraq and Saudi Arabia did not need U.S. economic assistance, and Jordan was, until the late 1950s, the ward of Great Britain. After 1957, when the United States assumed responsibility for supporting Jordan and resumed economic aid to Egypt, assistance to the Arab states soared. U.S. aid to Israel from then until 1985 consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel. By comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the European Community. Also, the United States was and continues to be by far the biggest contributor of aid to the Palestinians through UNRWA.

Also, in 1947 the UN proposed a partition plan, which would have created both an Arab (note not "Palestinian" as that word was not used to describe the Arab population until 1964) and a Jewish state. This partition was accepted by the Jewish leadership. The Arab League and every major Arab leader objected in principle to the right of the Jews to an independent state in the British Mandate of Palestine, reflecting the policies of the Arab League.

The Arab response, in addition to rejection of a Jewish state, was to launch a declaredly genocidal war beginning in November 1947, and escalating after Israel declared its independence (in the midst of struggling to defend its survival) in May 1948. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan) and Iraq, with aid from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

All of Israel's wars have seen the small state responding to what amount to what are internationally recognized acts of war by aggressor nations. Israel has been consistently outnumbered and outgunned and managed to survive a declaredly genocidal war in 1967 with aggressor nations: Egypt, Jordan and Syria (also, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria). In 1973, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan once again tried to in their own words "push the Jews into the [Mediterranean] sea.”

If we look at the area with a different perspective, i.e. a historical one, we can see that far from being the large aggressor with respect to the Palestinians, Israel is a small Jewish state amidst 25 Arab countries. Rather than being a big bad oppressor, Israel is very much a threatened minority in its area of the world. This is population-wise, militarily, and geographically, it is much much smaller than any of its neighbors. It is not honest to look only at Israel and its military might with respect to the Palestinians. We must recognize that Israel's existence has been and continues to be threatened by its neighbors who have shown their unwillingness to accept Israel's existence. The only two Arab states that recognize Israel's right to exist are Jordan and Egypt. And among Israel’s neighbors, Iran consistently issues statements declaring its intention to annihilate Israel and the Jews.

One other thing no one seems to mention (except the disgusting, but at least honest, post by "sireen") is that since 1948 (though many were refugees were absorbed prior to this), Israel has absorbed over 850,000 refugees from Arab lands where their families had lived for hundreds of years. These people fled their homes on threat of imprisonment and death. Their land and all of their property were confiscated. Israel absorbed these refugees immediately along with many others. Yet Arab countries do nothing to absorb their refugees for 40-60 years, preferring to make them live in refugee camps and stir and direct their hatred at Israel. Why should they absorb their "brothers and sisters" when they can use them as a tool to politically and physically attack Israel? The Arab states are very keen on funding Palestinian terrorist organizations, but unwilling to actually improve the lives of their suffering "brothers and sisters.”

Lastly, some "non-georgetown student" said: "The violence of the occupation produces the violence of resistance." Well, here we have an interesting dilemma, when did "occupation" begin? 1967? 1948? Earlier? If we say 1948, then we are arguing that Israel has no right to exist and that the Jews do not deserve a homeland (contrary to the 1947 UN partition) and I would argue that this is an anti-Semitic argument. You may disagree, and argue that this is not true. However, arguing that the Palestinians, who never had a state or political autonomy, nor were ever recognized as a separate entity prior to 1964, do deserve a state is a double-standard, and decidedly anti-Semitic. So, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're not anti-Semitic. Then the "occupation" began in 1967. Then why did the PLO (a "resistance" i.e. terrorist organization) begin in 1964? Is it possible that they foresaw the 1967 "occupation" and through this prescience decided to begin their "resistance"? Or is it possible that it is the very presence of Jews and a Jewish State is what motivated their "resistance". The truth is, the "resistance" or terrorist attacks on Jewish civilians living in that area of the world pre-date 1948 and the existence of the State of Israel. The 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron and Safed, and the evacuation of Jews from Gaza in the same year far pre-date any "occupation.” The alliance between Haj Amin al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Nazis is well-documented, and he met with Adolf Hitler in 1941. "He fled Palestine in 1937 and took refuge in Nazi Germany during World War II and helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS." (wikipedia) All of this predates even 1948.

So, let's not argue about "the violence of occupation [causing] the violence of resistance." It is the presence of large numbers of Jewish refugees in the area who fled pogroms (massacres of Jews) all over Europe in the late 19th century, and the Holocaust of WWII that caused the anti-Jewish violence and harassment since the early 1920s. And though some of this xenophobia and fear of change is natural, it must be recognized for what it was, not ignored. That is the history of the violence. Whether it has changed or not based on the realities of today is another question.

i suppose i could still be 'anti-semitic', and self-hating, but i'm also jewish. glad you gave me the benefit of the doubt