Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Noteworthy:

"...what is the difference between the occupied land of Palestine and the occupied land of the UAE? Aren't they both Arab territories, according to the pan-Arab standards that say that the land of the Arabs extends from the Gulf to the [Atlantic] Ocean? "

>>>>

Foes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tried to kill the hard-line leader with X-ray radiation during his recent visit to Italy, Iran’s former ambassador to Rome told Russian news service RIA Novosti on Monday.

>>>>

What they did not have a right to do was attack the nascent Jewish state with the objective - as they acknowledged at the time - of initiating a 'war of extermination.' The result was, therefore, a double Nakba: not only of Palestinian-Arab suffering and the creation of a Palestinian refugee problem, but also, with the assault on Israel and on Jews in Arab countries, the creation of a second, much less known, group of refugees - Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

>>>>

The question arises, is it right to characterise as antisemitic those adverse stances towards Israel and the Zionist project that are derived from false facts, and / or are malicious, and / or are taken without regard to Jewish objections, and / or resonate with antisemitism's history and / or deploy antisemitic tropes? Mostly, the answer is "yes" - particularly when several of these features are combined. But in certain instances, the answer might be, "no" - or "not quite."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home