You can´t test us asking always about Israel, is you ant a better and more transparent result you don´t need that. Ask them about the execution of worker unionists or homosexuals in Iran, Ask the spanish about the sistematic torture of immigrants at detention centers (not prison), ask them about he treatment of indians in South America, including under left wing regimes. Ask the human rights groups about their participation in the black genocide in Libya or about Sudan.

Truth is not up for vote and justice is not justice if it is not blind to the status and standing of any man. All humans are equal and should be judged according to their deeds. Period.

member than Peace Now activist! It's a matter of honesty.

I am in full agreement with the thrust of this article. Victimization does not justify the commitment of atrocities or unjust acts, nor should should such acts be legitimated through 'humanitarian' racism. However, we all need to be aware of abusing the role of victim to justify actions that others might see as aggressive, not just Palestinians or Muslims.

that justify abominable behaviour by whining antisemitism. Isn't there something in Jewish law, also, about no Jew may testify against another Jew in a "goyish" court? Even it that other Jew has clearly done something criminal?

I appreciate your point about the subtlety of humanitarian racism. I never heard term prior to this artcle, but it makes sense even in the context of our American culture. How often do people put the blame for those guilty of heinous crimes and extreme anti-social on a person's disadvantages in their past? It happens all to often here. Thank you for putting a name for something tha tI and many others sense, especially in the context of American politics.

well, great peace of work, with main goal: justification of law that forbids forren founding to NGOs. I mean, humanitarian racisem owerlooked? This is the same as trying to justify civilian casulties during the last war on gaza- you can't. Mr. Manfred, I do not know what kind of doctor you are, but for shure you are spin Doctor, becouse this article really take extra spinning.

Anyone with longer memories can recall the times when the Communists (USSR) openly supported the "Lumumba-type" anti-Imperialist struggle of the people of color. The destruction of the White people (Jews are considered white, Ethiopians notwithstanding) - was and is the goal of the anti-colonialist movements all over the world. Supported by the Leftists. The US too is engulfed in an unofficial, undeclared racial friction which is ubiquitous in the public discourse in connection with Obamao. Cultural Marxism replaced the orthodox, "class-struggle" based Marxism and the New Pol.Corr. ethics declared that the people of colors are "protected class" and the "white guilt" compels people to submit to their whim. The 3rd. world solidarity with the Arabs is more racially motivated than ideologically... What ideology...Jihad? Why blacks convert to Islam in the prisons? Just think of it.

... with the main thesis about "humanitarian racism" which patronizes so-called victims and steals their responsibility and in the end also their dignity from them. And I agree that you can find this approach quite often in so called humanitarian Western organizations. Only Mr. Gerstenfeld wouldn't be himself if he didn't use this phenomenon for drawing another black-and white picture where there is a clear "good" (Israel) and "bad" (nearly all the rest of the world, especially the hostile Arab and the humaitarian racist Western world). Following his own logics, you could ask him: How often has he critisised violent acts of Jewish settlers against Arabs in the Westbank? Has he even once raised the question why so many Western governments and Israel friends feel so embarrassed by Bibi, Liberman & Co.? Ah, he hasn't? Does this make him a philosemitic racist already? Of course not, but that's exactly his way of arguing.

And let us stick to the topic of what he said. Yes, Israel is not perfect-Germany is even less perfect... But what about the Israel bashers? Give it back to them a bit!

...still contains objectionable vulgar hostility and even subtly propagating antisemitism even by trying to discredit the evry idea that racism against Jews exist and the Jews are "hining" because of it. This is itself clear cut case of Jew-hatred. And yes, non-kosher. Let this shameless non-Jewish woman and intruder ehre go back to Britain (based on her spelling) where she came from. There's zero need for her racism in the Jewish state! Finally, let my voice be heard at least in the spirit of free speech and freedom of criticism.

and furthermore, regardless of religious doctrine, Jews adhere to the laws of the nations into which they've been assimilated, unlike the vast majority of Muslims, who have shown time and again that Sharia is the only system of law they should answer to.

I agree. However it is the "Palestinians" who are the leading experts in abusing the role of [self-made] victim.

I really liked this article. I believe that this article describes a lot of people in the progressive left. For example, when I was living in the US, I once attended an Amnesty International meeting. They were having a discussion about female circumcision. I was trying to urge every one at the meeting to take a stand against female circumcision, because it is a major human rights abuse that negatively affects many women in Africa for the rest of their lives. This particular Amnesty International chapter refused, claiming that because of cultural relativism, as white Americans, they had no right to take a stand against a tradition that is part of many African cultures. I told them that a human rights abuse is a human rights abuse, regardless whether it is sanctioned by a certain culture or not. The interesting thing is that these same people often criticize Jews for living in settlements, without respecting that the Jewish religion encourages Jews to live in their ancestral land and offers many blessings to Jews who do so. So, for Africans, cultural relativism is ok, but not for Israeli Jews. After seeing such hypocrisy, I never went to an Amnesty International meeting again.

Jewish people all over the world are now realising the frankenstein they helped create - the southen poverty law center is all about villfying whites. The "progressive" magazine (jewish publishers) does the same thing. We need to help stop this monster.

One only has to ask these extreme supporters of Israel a few questions or investigate their statements and publications. The first question is: “Can you show me where and how often you have exposed the substantial percentage of Zionists in the world who support and justify Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people both in 1948 and today? The second question: “The Israeli government is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva convention and is also a signatory to a range of other human rights conventions. How often have you called upon your government to abide by the 4th Geneva convention and stop the building of illegal Israeli colonies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and to stop carrying out extrajudicial assassinations (the convention prohibits an occupying power such as Israel from transfering sections of its civilian population into the territories it militarily occupies as well as extrajudicial assassinations) and how often have you called on the Israeli government to protect Palestinian human rights? The third question: “Where and how often have you exposed the profoundly murderous worldview that permeates Zionist society and the Israeli government? (afterall 95% of Israeli Zionist society supported Operation Cast Lead and the murder of 1400 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians including 350 children). If one finds that these supporters of Israel have remained silent or said little on any of these issues, they can be “outed” as Zionist racists. One can apply this Zionist racism test to politicians, religious leaders, journalists, academics as well as to Jewish and Israeli supporters of the Zionist state.

Jaine, Obviously this article struck a little close to home with you. I'd go as far to say that it was a "direct hit" and reflects directly on you and your misbeliefs. Honestly, no one in their right mind would ask Israelis these questions unless they were themselves deluded and prime examples of the folk that the article was addressing. How sad for you.

That is exactly what the article is saying. It would be even better if the world press would publish Israel’s good deeds such as helping others during catastrophes, not only its reaction to acts of terrorism.

No. This "law" comes from the wishful thinking of whining antisemites who hate Jews. Actually, Jewish law says that "the law of the land [in which you live] is the law". Many Muslims try to circumvent this concept (and therefore fall closer to the ‘situation’ you describe) when they try to set up sharia courts in western countries (eg England).

The IDF tried to avoid civilian casualties but were frustrated many times by Hamas hiding behind them. You are the spin doctor on this one.

actually solomon , I think you'll find that in the UK, Jews are able to conduct some types of civil proceedings in their own Jewish courts according to their own law. Sharia law has the same standing in some western countries. Since the Roman Empire and earlier Jews have stood our from others in the extent to which they have demanded and received special treatment and exemptions from the authorities. If they had not done so they would have assimilated and become part of bigger nations centuries ago. Most tribes have always assimilated , not least by sharing each others gods, when they have lived with a larger nation. That is how nations like the British and French came into existance. We dont talk about Norman Brits, Viking Brits, Saxon Brits etc. Those tribes are now just Brits. It would not have become a great nation if those tribes had not joined to become one.

You make some excellent points. It seems I was speaking more of following your own religious law as long as it does not conflict with the law of the land you are in. Any law that a Jew may not testify against another Jew in a "goyish" court in modern times would be illegal. [If such a law exists and I have not heard of such a law.] A law that you must kill your daughter if she 'dishonors' your family would also be illegal. There is the other side of the argument. You bring up the point of which laws are we speaking of? I bring up the point of how does it affect others? Law re: testimony in court and dishonor of the family do affect others. Being able to slaughter according to kashrut does not affect others. There are arguments on both sides re: circumcision.

and surely by your statement you mistake assimilation for conversion. I imagine that the early Christians would not have "assimilated" too well if pagan Rome had not adopted Christianity at the end of the 4th century. Also, your analogy about how the European tribes supposedly "assimilated" is simply wrong. These "tribes" that you call "Brits" and "French" were unified by the Church FOR POLITICAL REASONS; they did not assimilate into a "larger nation", unless you (wrongly) consider the Church to be a nation.

a friend of Dorothy is synonym for a gay man. Comes from Judy Garland and her role as Dorothy i The Wizard of Oz.