I vaguely recall the historical references you mentioned.  I'll have to brush up on them when I get the chance.  Could it be that anti-Semitism informs our pro-Israel foreign policy?  The only time I hear the American Right talk pro-Jewish is regarding Israel.  The Evangelical death cult adheres to a bogus prophesy of Armageddon letting fly when all the Jews retrun to Israel.  That's one thing.  I seem to remember anti-Semitism being all the rage among the gentile Right in generations past.  Old WASP families like the Bushes saw the Jews as threatening to their dominance.  You know the old stereotypes: Jews are brainy.  Jews are good with money.  Those stereotypes developed for a reason.  They only became construed as negative because gentiles felt threatened.  The true levers of power in this country still reside with old money gentiles.  I don't buy this hogwash about "the Jewish lobby."  Nobody has ever pinpointed for me what the hell "the Jewish lobby" even is.  It reminds me of the way people go on about the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission.*
The real "Jewish lobby" might just be the entrenched gentile power structure saying, "let's keep the Jews focused more on Israel and less on Washington." 
mmmaybe not, though.  Just a thought.



  Political Action Committees (PAC) may be those "lobbies" we're hearing about.  Many say they should be abolished.  They rob part of our democracy, they say.  Technically, PACs don't bribe our politicians, they just make extremely large "donations" to your "campaign"...If you play ball.  If you don't, then they make extremely large donations to your opponent's "campaign".  Both Bush and Clinton made pre-campaign promises to abolish them, but PACs are still here and more powerful than ever...

  To wit: AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is the most powerful PAC in America...

  AIPAC is, (to quote David Shipler, front page of the New York Times, July 6, 1987) "...a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East..." and that AIPAC has many members of the American government--what's the polite term for "in it's pocket"?-- and it is't shy about using it's power to make or break a poliotician's career.  Even has "the power to influence a Presidential candidate's choice of staff"...

  On Middle East Policy, A Major Influence - By David K. Shipler, New York Times, July 6, 1987


  AIPAC ARCHIVES

  Yeah, I read Progressive Review...groove ;) on...

i'm just on a youtube tear last couple of days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaBGDd9z5Ac

you'll never guess who was in that "raid on entebbe" movie of the week.

The WASPs were threatened because we started "invading" American academic, business, and cultural areas and institutions that were previously closed to all but white Protestants. We rose to cultural prominence quicker than any other ethnic group. We were admitted to Ivy League Schools despite the quota and graduated at the top of the class, and we had greater business acumen and dedication, because we came from poverty. My grandfathers are great examples of this. My paternal grandfather was born to a lower middle-class, uneducated family from Poland and Lithuania. His father was basically a chronically unemployed textile industry clerk from Lithuania. He received the 2nd highest Regents Score in the state of New York for 1936, graduated from Yale and Columbia Law School at the top of his class, and became a law firm partner at one of New York's leading law firms, and a Democratic political activist in Manhattan of great repute. My maternal grandfather was born to dirt poor Ukrainian Jewish immigrants in 1914 in the slums of Newark, who were primarily Yiddish speaking. He transferred from Rutgers Newark to Harvard, went back in his thirties to get a psychiatry degree, and helped found the New Jersey Psychiatric Association, and moved to a fancy suburb outside of Newark. This threatened the hell out of the WASPs. Goldman Sachs started to threaten Morgan Stanley, for instance.

GO NEW MONEY  ;)!

Exactly.  On an even playing field Dan Quayle from Indiana cannot compete with Myron Cohen from Brooklyn.  What's more, he feels entitled not to.  The old money WASPs assume America is their country and always should be.  The Jews were just a bunch of interlopers.  I remember in about 1990 when the started talking about a quota for how many "Asians" should be admitted to Stanford each year, I thought, "hey, the Asians are the new Jews!"  Yeah, yeah, everybody loves competition and may the best man win, until he is no longer the best man and isn't winning.  Then it's "not fair!"
See, most of the WASP money was not earned.  It was stolen from the rest of the world via the British empire! Back in the day, if you were the Third Earl of Kent, it didn't matter 'ow bleedin' stupid you were.  You were a bigshot from birth.  That's what you see with the Bush family.  The Bushes want a neo-aristocracy in which they shall be the royals.

One key difference.  A hundred years ago, if war broke out, and you were the son of the Third Earl of Kent, you suited up and went to the frontlines.  That's just what you did.  No question.  It went back to feudal knighthood.  The royals fought for their country and their subjects.  America does not have a feudal tradition.  Uh, that was one of the tenets of the founding of the country.  The other was NO ARISTOCRACY.  So the American neo-aristocrats want the best of both worlds, the privileges of royalty whilst owing the commoners NOTHING!*

I'm a WASP too.  I have Pilgrim ancenstors on the Mayflower.  The difference is my family has no money!

*This is not to suggest the royals actually did right by the commoners!  Ever heard of a guy named Oliver Cromwell?  Eh, that didn't work out so good either.

The Thirty Three Day War: From Mania to Depression


    Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.


Tel Aviv.

Thirty three days of war. The longest of our wars since 1949.

On the Israeli side: 154 dead--117 of them soldiers. 3970 rockets launched against us, 37 civilians dead, more than 422 civilians wounded.

On the Lebanese side: about a thousand dead civilians, thousands wounded. An unknown number of Hizbullah fighters dead and wounded.

More than a million refugees on both sides.

So what has been achieved for this terrible price?

"GLOOMY, HUMBLE, despondent," was how the journalist Yossef Werter described Ehud Olmert, a few hours after the cease-fire had come into effect.

Olmert? Humble? Is this the same Olmert we know? The same Olmert who thumped the table and shouted: "No more!" Who said: "After the war, the situation will be completely different than before!" Who promised a "New Middle East" as a result of the war?

* * *

THE RESULTS of the war are obvious:

* The prisoners, who served as casus belli (or pretext) for the war, have not been released. They will come back only as a result of an exchange of prisoners, exactly as Hassan Nasrallah proposed before the war.

* Hizbullah has remained as it was. It has not been destroyed, nor disarmed, nor even removed from where it was. Its fighters have proved themselves in battle and have even garnered compliments from Israeli soldiers. Its command and communication stucture has continued to function to the end. Its TV station is still broadcasting.

* Hassan Nasrallah is alive and kicking. Persistent attempts to kill him failed. His prestige is sky-high. Everywhere in the Arab world, from Morocco to Iraq, songs are being composed in his honor and his picture adorns the walls.

* The Lebanese army will be deployed along the border, side by side with a large international force. That is the only material change that has been achieved.

This will not replace Hizbullah. Hizbullah will remain in the area, in every village and town. The Israeli army has not succeeded in removing it from one single village. That was simply impossible without permanently removing the population to which it belongs.

The Lebanese army and the international force cannot and will not confront Hizbullah. Their very presence there depends on Hizbullah's consent. In practice, a kind of co-existence of the three forces will come into being, each one knowing that it has to come to terms with the other two.

Perhaps the international force will be able to prevent incursions by Hizbullah, such as the one that preceded this war. But it will also have to prevent Israeli actions, such as the reconnaissance flights of our Air Force over Lebanon. That's why the Israeli army objected, at the beginning, so strenuously to the introduction of this force.

* * *

IN ISRAEL, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment and despondency. From mania to depression. It's not only that the politicians and the generals are firing accusations at each other, as we foresaw, but the general public is also voicing criticism from every possible angle. The soldiers criticize the conduct of the war, the reserve soldiers gripe about the chaos and the failure of supplies.

In all parties, there are new opposition groupings and threats of splits. In Kadima. In Labor. It seems that in Meretz, too, there is a lot of ferment, because most of its leaders supported the war dragon almost until the last moment, when they caught its tail and pierced it with their little lance.

At the head of the critics are marching--surprise, surprise--the media. The entire horde of interviewers and commentators, correspondents and presstitutes, who (with very few exceptions) enthused about the war, who deceived, misled, falsified, ignored, duped and lied for the fatherland, who stifled all criticism and branded as traitors all who opposed the war--they are now running ahead of the lynch mob. How predictable, how ugly. Suddenly they remember what we have been saying right from the beginning of the war.

This phase is symbolized by Dan Halutz, the Chief-of-Staff. Only yesterday he was the hero of the masses, it was forbidden to utter a word against him. Now he is being described as a war profiteer. A moment before sending his soldiers into battle, he found the time to sell his shares, in expectation of a decline of the stock market. (Let us hope that a moment before the end he found the time to buy them back again.)

Victory, as is well known, has many fathers, and failure in war is an orphan.

* * *

FROM THE deluge of accusations and gripes, one slogan stands out , a slogan that must send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone with a good memory: "the politicians did not let the army win."

Exactly as I wrote two weeks ago, we see before our very eyes the resurrection of the old cry "they stabbed the army in the back!"

This is how it goes: At long last, two days before the end, the land offensive started to roll. Thanks to our heroic soldiers, the men of the reserves, it was a dazzling success. And then, when we were on the verge of a great victory, the cease-fire came into effect.

There is not a single word of truth in this. This operation, which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them.

The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in twenty places to the mortal attacks of the guerillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons.

If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation after all--well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical--not to say vile--exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory", as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed.

The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the cease-fire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani.

For comparison: in the first Lebanon war, that of Sharon in 1982, the army crossed the Litani in the first few hours. (The Litani, by the way, is not a real river anymore, but just a shallow creek. Most of its waters are drawn off far from there, in the north. Its last stretch is about 25 km distant from the border, near Metulla the distance is only 4 km.)

This time, when the cease-fire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place.

If a commission of inquiry is set up--as it must be--and investigates all the moves of this war, starting from the way the decision to start it was made, it will also have to investigate the decision to start this last operation. The death of 33 soldiers (including the son of the writer David Grossman, who had supported the war) and the pain this caused their families demand that!

* * *

BUT THESE facts are not yet clear to the general public. The brain-washing by the military commentators and the ex-generals, who dominated the media at the time, has turned the foolish--I would almost say "criminal"--operation into a rousing victory parade. The decision of the political leadership to stop it is now being seen by many as an act of defeatist, spineless, corrupt and even treasonous politicians.

And that is exactly the new slogan of the fascist Right that is now raising its ugly head.

After World War I, in similar circumstances, the legend of the "knife in the back of the victorious army" grew up. Adolf Hitler used it to carry him to power--and on to World War II.

Now, even before the last fallen soldier has been buried, the incompetent generals are starting to talk shamelessly about "another round", the next war that will surely come "in a month or in a year", God willing. After all, we cannot end the matter like this, in failure. Where is our pride?

* * *

THE ISRAELI public is now in a state of shock and disorientation. Accusations--justified and unjustified--are flung around in all directions, and it cannot be foreseen how things will develop.

Perhaps, in the end, it is logic that will win. Logic says: what has thoroughly been demonstrated is that there is no military solution. That is true in the North. That is also true in the South, where we are confronting a whole people that has nothing to lose anymore. The success of the Lebanese guerilla will encourage the Palestinian guerilla.

For logic to win, we must be honest with ourselves: pinpoint the failures, investigate their deeper causes, draw the proper conclusions.

Some people want to prevent that at any price. President Bush declares vociferously that we have won the war. A glorious victory over the Evil Ones. Like his own victory in Iraq.

When a football team is able to choose the referee, it is no surprise if it is declared the winner.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.

  Thank you, Star70...

  I just purchased Uri Avnery's My Friend, the Enemy not very long ago.  A great piece of writing by the Israeli peace veteran Uri Avnery...

  For those who may not know, Avnery and his family escaped the Nazis, and fled to Palestine, where he spent some years as an armed militant, fighting for Israel's statheood, in the Jewish underground.  He was the first Israeli journalist to meet with Arafat (for which he could have been tried for treason).  He was once a member of the Knesset.  A few months ago, he, and a Gush Shalom (Bloc of Peace) delegation met with elected Hamas officials, Abu Ter, and Ahmad Atun groove ;) on...

I thank you as well, STAR70.  :)
That was a very good read, and I'll check him out more thouroughly.

MORE URI:

A Practical Manual
Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Zionism

By URI AVNERY

A Hungarian Joke: During the June 1967 war, a Hungarian meets his friend. "Why do you look so happy?" he asks. "I heard that the Israelis shot down six Soviet-made MiGs today," his friend replies.

The next day, the friend looks even more jubilant. "The Israelis downed another eight MiGs," he announces.

On the third day, the friend is crestfallen. "What happened? Didn't the Israelis down any MiGs today?" the man asks. "They did," the friend answers, "But today someone told me that the Israelis are Jews!"

This is the whole story in a nutshell.

The Anti-Semite hates the Jews because they are Jews, irrespective of their actions. Jews may be hated because they are rich and ostentatious or because they are poor and live in squalor. Because they played a major role in the Bolshevik revolution or because some of them became incredibly rich after the collapse of the Communist regime. Because they crucified Jesus or because they infected Western culture with the "Christian morality of compassion". Because they have no fatherland or because they created the State of Israel.

That is in the nature of all kinds of racism and chauvinism: One hates someone for being a Jew, Arab, woman, black, Indian, Muslim, Hindu. His or her personal attributes, actions, achievements are unimportant. If he or she belongs to the abhorred race, religion or gender, they will be hated.

The answers to all questions relating to anti-Semitism follow from this basic fact. For example:

Is everybody who criticizes Israel an anti-Semite?

Absolutely not. Somebody who criticizes Israel for certain of our actions cannot be accused of anti-Semitism for that. But somebody who hates Israel because it is a Jewish state, like the Hungarian in the joke, is an anti-Semite. It is not always easy to distinguish between the two kinds, because shrewd anti-Semites pose as bona fide critics of Israel's actions. But presenting all critics of Israel as anti-Semites is wrong and counter-productive, it damages the fight against anti-Semitism.

Many deeply moral persons, the cream of humanity, criticize our behavior in the occupied territories. It is stupid to accuse them of anti-Semitism.

Can a person be an anti-Zionist without being an anti-Semite?

Absolutely yes. Zionism is a political creed and must be treated like any other. One can be anti-Communist without being anti-Chinese, anti-Capitalist without being anti-American, anti-Globalist, anti-Anything. Yet, again, it is not always easy to draw the line, because real anti-Semites often pretend just to be "anti-Zionists". They should not be helped by erasing the distinction.

Can a person be an anti-Semite and a Zionist?

Indeed, yes. The founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, already tried to enlist the support of notorious Russian anti-Semites, promising them to take the Jews off their hands. Before World War II, the Zionist underground organization IZL established military training camps in Poland under the auspices of the anti-Semitic generals, who also wanted to get rid of the Jews. Nowadays, the Zionist extreme Right receives and welcomes massive support from the American fundamentalist evangelists, whom the majority of American Jews, according to a poll published this week, consider profoundly anti-Semitic. Their theology prophesies that on the eve of the second coming of Christ, all Jews must convert to Christianity or be exterminated.

Can a Jew be anti-Semitic?

That sounds like an oxymoron. But history has known some instances of Jews who became ferocious Jew-haters. The Spanish Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, was of Jewish descent. Karl Marx wrote some very nasty things about the Jews, as did Otto Weininger, an important Jewish writer in fin-de-siecle Vienna. Herzl, his contemporary and fellow-Viennese, wrote in his diaries some very uncomplimentary remarks about the Jews.

If a person criticizes Israel more than other countries which do the same, is he an anti-Semite?

Not necessarily. True, there should be one and the same moral standard for all countries and all human beings. Russian actions in Chechnya are not better than ours in Nablus, and may be worse. The trouble is that the Jews are pictured and picture themselves (and indeed were) a "nation of victims". Therefore, the world is shocked that yesterday's victims are today's victimizers. A higher moral standard is required from us than from other peoples. And rightly so.

Has Europe become anti-Semitic again?

Not really. The number of anti-Semites in Europe has not grown, perhaps it has even fallen. What has increased is the volume of criticism of Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians, who appear as "the victims of the victims".

The situation in some suburbs of Paris, which is often cited as an example of the rise of anti-Semitism, is a quite different affair. When North African Muslims clash with North African Jews, they are transferring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to European soil. It is also a continuation of the feud between Arabs and Jews that started in Algeria when the Jews supported the French regime and Muslims considered them collaborators of the hated colonialists.

Then why did most Europeans state in a recent poll that Israel endangers world peace more than any other country?

That has a simple explanation: Europeans see on television every day what our soldiers are doing in the occupied Palestinian territories. This confrontation is covered more than any other conflict on earth (with the possible exception of Iraq, for the time being), because Israel is more "interesting", considering the long history of the Jews in Europe and because Israel is closer to the Western media than Muslim or African countries. The Palestinian resistance, which Israelis call "terrorism", seems to many Europeans very much like the French resistance to the German occupation.

What about the anti-Semitic manifestations in the Arab world?

No doubt, typically anti-Semitic indications have crept lately into Arab discourse. Suffice it to mention that the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" have been published in Arabic. That is a typically European import. The Protocols were invented by the secret police of Czarist Russia.

Whatever inanities may be voiced by certain "experts", there never was any widespread Muslim anti-Semitism, such as existed in Christian Europe. In the course of his fight for power, the prophet Muhammad fought against neighboring Jewish tribes, and therefore there are some negative passages about the Jews in the Kor'an. But they cannot be compared to the anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament story about the crucifixion of Christ that have poisoned the Christian world and caused endless suffering. Muslim Spain was a paradise for the Jews, and there has never been a Jewish Holocaust in the Muslim world. Even pogroms were extremely rare.

Muhammad decreed that the "Peoples of the Book" (Jews and Christians) be treated tolerantly, subject to conditions that were incomparably more liberal than those in contemporary Europe. The Muslims never imposed their religion by force on Jews and Christians, as shown by the fact that almost all the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain settled in the Muslim countries and flourished there. After centuries of Muslim rule, Greeks and Serbs remained thoroughly Christian.

When peace is established between Israel and the Arab world, the poisonous fruits of anti-Semitism will most probably disappear from the Arab world (as will the poisonous fruits of Arab-hating in our society.)

Aren't the utterances of the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Muhammad, about the Jews controlling the world, anti-Semitic?

Yes and no. They certainly illustrate the difficulty of pinning anti-Semitism down. From a factual point of view, the man was right when he asserted that the Jews have a far bigger influence than their percentage of the world's population alone would warrant. It is true that the Jews have a large influence on the policy of the United States, the only super-power, as well as on the American and international media. One does not need the phony "Protocols" in order to face this fact and analyse its causes. But the sounds make the music, and Mahathir's music does indeed sound anti-Semitic.

So should we ignore anti-Semitism?

Definitely not. Racism is a kind of virus that exists in every nation and in every human being. Jean-Paul Sartre said that we are all racists, the difference being that some of us realize this and fight against it, while others succumb to the evil. In ordinary times, there is a small minority of blatant racists in every country, but in times of crisis their number can multiply rapidly. This is a perpetual danger, and every people must fight against the racists in their midst.

We Israelis are like all other peoples. Each of us can find a small racist within himself, if he searches hard enough. We have in our country fanatical Arab-haters, and the historic confrontation that dominates our lives increases their power and influence. It is our duty to fight them, and leave it to the Europeans and Arabs to deal with their own racists.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.

I just love the peeps who are so stupid and arrogant, It was not Truman's Idea to form a Jewish state he was against it. He had to be persuaded by Churchill and Charles De Gaulle, plus throw in the  half a dozen senators and congressmen. It was the belief at the time give them a home, they will leave our country. And the millions from Europe. Look at the ocean liner when the war in Europe ended,  that thousand of Jewish people died on because no one in Europe would let the ship land for food and supplies. Oh and just for Sh--'s and Giggles be nice give us back America and  go back where you all came from...You people are so hypocritical please how many of you know that in the last three to four years, two more Indian reservations just got running water, contrary to what most of you know. There are still three that do not have it, in this fine country. In one of the cases a nearby town the people in it  White,  Black and Latino voted against it said it would strain there resources. Even through the people on the Reservation would build it them selves. Plus they did not want a pipe line to mess up their nice area. It was voted down by  ratio of 50 to 1. So what does that tell you.
Oh and one more thing it was the Muslims yes them, that started the main slave trade on the east to west ships, they realized they could make gold off the flesh of the black savage. That is quoted in many a text. They have been dealing with the slave trade  long before they
met the crusaders.
OK flamers get out yer throwers..:P:P

I just love the peeps who are so stupid and arrogant
well sure! what's not to love?

I just love the peeps who are so stupid and arrogant, It was not Truman's Idea to form a Jewish state he was against it. He had to be persuaded by Churchill and Charles De Gaulle, plus throw in the  half a dozen senators and congressmen. It was the belief at the time give them a home, they will leave our country. And the millions from Europe. Look at the ocean liner when the war in Europe ended,  that thousand of Jewish people died on because no one in Europe would let the ship land for food and supplies. Oh and just for Sh--'s and Giggles be nice give us back America and  go back where you all came from...You people are so hypocritical please how many of you know that in the last three to four years, two more Indian reservations just got running water, contrary to what most of you know. There are still three that do not have it, in this fine country. In one of the cases a nearby town the people in it  White,  Black and Latino voted against it said it would strain there resources. Even through the people on the Reservation would build it them selves. Plus they did not want a pipe line to mess up their nice area. It was voted down by  ratio of 50 to 1. So what does that tell you.
Oh and one more thing it was the Muslims yes them, that started the main slave trade on the east to west ships, they realized they could make gold off the flesh of the black savage. That is quoted in many a text. They have been dealing with the slave trade  long before they
met the crusaders.
OK flamers get out yer throwers..:P:P

"Oh! We thought them Injuns liked drawin' water down the well and bar-B-cuin' some lamb intestines over the campfire!  Speak up next time, Chief, we'll help ya out!"
---Andrew Young

Hey I just like to rave :P pop a post and watch all the fun. Just like you did here Tia. :)

OK flamers get out yer throwers..:P:P



  I'd love to, if only I knew what you were talking about...

I am talking about the wonderful double standard we give. Stop the war. Feed the poor everywere else but here. Hey give the redman a few casinos and that will fix all of their problems. Ever go down to Foxwood or some of the other casinos. Mostly Orientals that work there.

I am talking about the wonderful double standard we give. Stop the war. Feed the poor everywere else but here. Hey give the redman a few casinos and that will fix all of their problems. Ever go down to Foxwood or some of the other casinos. Mostly Orientals that work there.

but the people giving the "red man" casinos are the same people who support the wars! hello? jack abramoff?

I am talking about the wonderful double standard we give. Stop the war. Feed the poor everywere else but here. Hey give the redman a few casinos and that will fix all of their problems. Ever go down to Foxwood or some of the other casinos. Mostly Orientals that work there.



  I can only speak for myself, but no double standards here...

  "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
  Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
  Tax the rich, feed the poor
  Till there are no rich no more

  I'd love to change the world
  But I dont know what to do
  So Ill leave it up to you

  Population keeps on breeding
  Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
  Life is funny, skies are sunny
  Bees make honey, who needs money, monopoly

  I'd love to change the world
  But I dont know what to do
  So Ill leave it up to you

  World pollution, theres no solution
  Institution, electrocution
  Just black and white, rich or poor
  Them and us, stop the war

  I'd love to change the world
  But I dont know what to do
  So Ill leave it up to you..."

                        I'd Love to Change the World
                                            ~Ten Years After

  Sorry.  I can't think of anything more substantial to contribute, right now, as I haven't had my morning coffee yet...

  I wish peace to all innocents and enlightenment to all those who feel lost through deed or thought groove ;) on...

Mostly Orientals that work there.



  Oh, and "Orientals" is s-o-o-o eighteenth century... ;)

   I can only speak for myself, but no double standards here...

  "Everywhere is freaks and hairies
   Dyke's and fairies, tell me where is sanity
   Tax the rich, feed the poor
   Till there are no rich no more

   I'd love to change the world
   But I don't know what to do
   So Ill leave it up to you

   Population keeps on breeding
   Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
   Life is funny, skies are sunny
   Bees make honey, who needs money, monopoly

   I'd love to change the world
   But I don't know what to do
   So Ill leave it up to you

   World pollution, theres no solution
   Institution, electrocution
   Just black and white, rich or poor
   Them and us, stop the war

   I'd love to change the world
   But I don't know what to do
   So Ill leave it up to you..."

                         I'd Love to Change the World
                                             ~Ten Years After

   Sorry.  I can't think of anything more substantial to contribute, right now, as I haven't had my morning coffee yet...

   I wish peace to all innocents and enlightenment to all those who feel lost through deed or thought groove ;) on...

Hey now be careful you may offend someone with the Dyke's and Fairy's...Have to be political correct u know.:P

Hey now be careful you may offend someone with the Dyke's and Fairy's...Have to be political correct u know.:P
actually, those are plain old-fashioned slurs. nothing PC about avoiding their use, it's just basic civility and a matter of standing upright.

   Oh, and "Orientals" is s-o-o-o eighteenth century... ;)

Oh please! get your slurs right. if I was gonna go 18th century I would use the term coolies please.

Hey now be careful you may offend someone with the Dyke's and Fairy's...Have to be political correct u know.:P


  Bleak nihilism, aside, I always took the passing reference to "dykes and fairies" be a plea for normalcy from a time when people had actually heard of Ten Years After...*shrugs*


Oh please! get your slurs right. if I was gonna go 18th century I would use the term coolies please.


  A bit morbid, I suppose...

  Are you feeling okay, man..?

  Self esteem in a hole..?

  Don't mistake death for joy.  The bliss of a martyr is as quiet as the bliss of a victim...

 
  Don't mistake death for joy.  The bliss of a martyr is as quiet as the bliss of a victim...
that's my quote of the day! very eloquent.

I saw Ten Years After live twice. I like the Woodchoppers Ball and Adventures of a young organ.

                         I'd Love to Change the World
                                             ~Ten Years After

   Sorry.  I can't think of anything more substantial to contribute, right now, as I haven't had my morning coffee yet...

I'd love to buy the world a Coke! (a pesticide-free Coke, if possible.)

What about the anti-Semitic manifestations in the Arab world?

No doubt, typically anti-Semitic indications have crept lately into Arab discourse. Suffice it to mention that the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" have been published in Arabic. That is a typically European import. The Protocols were invented by the secret police of Czarist Russia.


I don't know if it's possible for Arabs to be anti-semitic, since by the proper definition of the term, the Arabs are a "semitic" people, too.

I don't know if it's possible for Arabs to be anti-semitic, since by the proper definition of the term, the Arabs are a "semitic" people, too.
no! not this word game again! i remember when mushroom said that middle-easterners were technically caucasians and therefore there could be no such thing as anti-arab racism. silly.

  Anti-Jewish sentiment and Anti-Semitism differ in that the latter was a concept forged and honed out of the exsistence of the former, and utilised to acheive the nationalistic goals of Zionism...

  As Theodor Herzl himself once said:
"Anti-semitism must not be confused with the anti-jewish sentiments that have exsisted for centuries..."

  It was me who claimed both Jews and Arabs are of the Semitic branch of the Caucasian race groove ;) on...