"...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."
"Civilization is not self-supporting. It is artificial. If you are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization -- you are done." (Ortega y Gasset)
Tuesday, July 01, 2008