Disclaimer: Warning! This debate deals with a very real and very mature subject about the possible Genocide of Jews in Israel. I am in no way condoning the content of my debate question, but in light of recent statements by the Muslim community I feel this is a worthy topic to discuss.

In light of the recent comments made by Malaysia's Prime Minister that 'Muslims should unite against Jews' saying 'that they rule the world by proxy'. Is Israel at a threat of an uprising from the non-democratic Muslim countries that surround it?

Also if this did happen and tens of thousands(or more) Jews in Israel were killed, what would be an appropriate response by the US and the world?

And finally, if there was genocide in Israel, would the turmoil in the middle east end?

Wow.

To the first question, yes Israel is at a very real threat of an uprising by the Muslim countries that surround it.

To answer the second question, The United States should retaliate FULLY if this horrible act occurred.

And if it would occur, the violence would escalate because of the wrath of the USA.



Apocalyptic

This is preposterous. Do you really think the world would stand by during mass genocide of Jews in Israel? There is no way.

The world only allows genocide to persist in places like Africa. (See Rwanda)

It would be surprised if Europe sat on the sidelines and watched if something this improbable were to transpire. The U.S. clearly would not.

Just which Arab nations would invade Israel?

Syria has, and was beat back. Jordan wouldn't. Saudi Arabia wouldn't. Iraq couldn't. Iran wouldn’t. Egypt wouldn't.

Your proposal is such a long shot that I consider it an impossibility.

really good question sleeper and frightening to even consider.

The PM of Malaysia is due to end his term at the end of this month...not soon enough apparently. His statements reflect all that is wrong in the world. Blame the other guy for your problems, never look inside to see if changes can be made. As a stateman this is totally irresponsible. What is very worrisome is that his remarks received loud applause AND a standing ovation. What does this say about the collective mindset of Leading Muslims and Heads of state?

If the extremist element had its way, then yes, genocide of the Jews would be the order of the day.

Edited to provide linkage
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/st...255E663,00.html

Nazi Germany. I hate to say it, but it's happened in the not so distant past.
Though I agree, the US wouldn't allow it to happen.

No. You're right genocide happens all the time. Irsael is not in a position to be a victim of it though. The U.S. would never allow this. France, Germany, and Russia might and the U.N. Security Counsel might pass a resolution asking the invaders to stop, but the U.S. wouldn't allow it.

Has Israel ever really known a day of peace in its over 50 year existence? Israel has nuclear weapons, and would use them under such a contingency.

Billy Jean is correct. Nazi Germany's attempted genocide of the Jew's in Germany was initiated with mere rhetoric.

Thats been a problem with Israel from the beginning, so many of the surronding countries just won't accept Israel's soverignty. The German National Socialist party seperated races into inferior and superior classes. Many of the Slavic and other non-arian ethnic groups didn't fair much better. Genocide is a crime against humanity, not just one particular group.

Is Israel at a threat of an uprising from the non-democratic Muslim countries that surround it?

I don't believe so. I don't see any evidence that the Muslim leaders of nations like Egypt of Jordan are particularly eager to face Israel's nuclear arsenal. Its probable that they continue to fuel the problem with clandestine aid to the Palestinians, but this is a far cry from a genocide.

I'm not even sure just how such a genocide could be accomplished given that Israel is armed to the teeth...

Also if this did happen and tens of thousands(or more) Jews in Israel were killed, what would be an appropriate response by the US and the world?

Immediate military intervention.


And finally, if there was genocide in Israel, would the turmoil in the middle east end?

No. The Muslim world faces a crisis of identity, and Israel is only a convenient scape goat, the removal of which would only further expose the contradiction between the fundamentalists and the progressive Muslims

In light of the recent comments made by Malaysia's Prime Minister that 'Muslims should unite against Jews' saying 'that they rule the world by proxy'. Is Israel at a threat of an uprising from the non-democratic Muslim countries that surround it?

This is definitely a possibility when one takes the regional context into account. The general populations of Israel's neighbors are generally very anti-Israeli (policy-wise), if not openly anti-Semitic. I believe this ignorance, coupled with a life long (often state sponsored) indoctrination is ripe for manipulation by leaders with that goal in mind. As previously stated, history shows that even democratic or ‘enlightened’ societies are capable of committing such atrocities.


However, I do not believe that any of Israel’s neighbors would attempt this in their current state of military armament. I believe the only threshold that keeps such a threat from being possible…are long range nuclear weapons. With them the retaliation factor is reduced to whatever wasn’t destroyed in the first strike.

These would also make the west much more hesitant about intervening on behalf of Israel. I would hope that my country would come to the aid of one of her allies, but who knows what the landscape will look like by the time such nuclear proliferation is allowed. With the outcry and media assault on the United States for her war of liberation in Iraq, would the same thing be tolerated for a US intervention on behalf of the ‘apartheid’ state of Israel? Never underestimate the power of media influence and propaganda. Hasn’t Israel committed genocide herself? Isn’t she then only getting a taste of her own medicine? What is that you say… it is the apartheid Zionist government that is committing the inhumanity, not the people. …But didn’t a majority of the people elect the evil government? Israel is a menace to the international community and must be stopped. Countless international laws and UN resolutions have been broken by the oppressive Israeli government to the detriment of regional peace. We must destroy them before they can destroy us. The Zionists are racists and wont stop with the poor Palestinians, we are next. These shallow propaganda bits I dreamed up are examples of, from my point of view, media undertones that inherently place Israel at risk of genocide perpetrated by her neighbors.

My point is that it is very likely that the west would not intervene if it were politically unpopular (due to changed public sentiment and media bias), and there was a risk of a nuclear strike. This in turn would make it very probable that the nuclear armed neighbor would stage the assault on Israel.

Also if this did happen and tens of thousands(or more) Jews in Israel were killed, what would be an appropriate response by the US and the world?

I believe that an immediate military response is warranted by the US, because Israel is an ally. As for the rest of the world I would expect economic sanctions and seizure, and diplomatic ties be broken with the aggressors.

And finally, if there was genocide in Israel, would the turmoil in the middle east end?

No. (Already explained by Moif )

I don't wish to be annoying or rude, but I would like to remind every one, that the word Semite is not exclusive to Jews, and it is quite impossible for the Arab nations to be deemed 'anti Semite'. Anti Jewish, or anti Israel... yes, but anti Semite, no.

Not so distant, but EXTREEMLY different past. The communications technology advancements that have been made since the beginning of Nazi Germany's genocide are probably the equivalent of all communications advances before that time. I think this is a main force in preventing genocide. Informed people with a broad view point are less likely to be fooled by radical rhetoric. Can it happen again? Maybe. But I would venture to guess that it is hundreds of times less likely than before.

For moif:
The second definition of Semite in the American Heritage dictionary is "A Jew". Colloquial usage of 'anti-Semite' refers to racism against people of Jewish race.

Oh, I agree. Human rights and international laws are in place to help prevent that from happening. But ethnic cleansing has happened in the last 15 years in eastern Europe. I think one instance Clinton tried to intervene.

campbejm



What is the first definition?

I find it odd that a dictionary would have such a definition, given that the word Semite refers to the Semitic people, and the Jews are not the only Semitic people.

To refer to Jews as Semites, strikes me as intellectual laziness and I am very surprised to hear it is described in a dictionary as such.

My OED makes no such distinction, refering to Jews only as one of the Semitic peoples. The others include the Arabs, Assyrians, Babylonians and Phoenicians.

Fine. And technically you are right. But in the vernacular, anti-Semite refers to someone who is racist against Jewish people.

Just like in the vernacular, people say nauseous when they mean nauseated.

Semite/Semitic and anti-Semitism/anti-Semitic have two separate and distinct meanings in our culture.


an·ti-Sem·i·tism (nt-sm-tzm, nt-)
n.

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.
source

anti-Semitism
hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns underway in central Europe at that time. Although this term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites.
source

Besides I fail to see your point....if an American can be labeled anti-American I see no reason to why a Semite could not be labeled anti-Semitic.

His point, is that Semite means (again, according to American Heritage):

1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and N Africa including the Arabs and Jews.
2. A Jew.

So I guess you could say that anti-Semite doesn't means only anti-Jewish.

However, the America Heritage dictionary also says:

Anti-Semite:
1. One who is prejudice against the Jews.
(There is no '2').

The point is simple. I am Jewish, but I am not a semite.

...And yet anti-Semitic is defined as anti-Jewish, and is used that way in common language.

And according to def number 2, you are.

Then I propose your dictionary's definition is either flawed or widely innacurate since I am Scandinavian.
I was not born in the middle east, and neither were my parents, or their parents or any of my family for at least the last three hundred years.

I am Jewish only because my mothers family were Jewish. Since I am male, and my GF is not Jewish, then the line will stop with me, but that makes no difference to me, nor would it make any difference to any one who was anti Jewish, or anti semitic.

However, none of this makes me a semite, and if your American dictionary says it does, then I suggest that this is the end result of lazy thinking. I imagine so many people have made the mistake of confusing the words anti semitism with anti Jewish, that the words themselves have become incorporated into American English, without any due regard to what the words really meant.

By your dictionaries definition, I belong to the same language group as the Arabs and Iraqi's!
Which I can assure you, I most certainly do not.

I looked up Semite also and came up with the same definition. Technically Moif, you are a Semite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semite

And by the way, bringing up dictionary.com and looking a word up isn't lazy research. I was always told by teachers if I didn't know what a word meant, too look it up in a dictionary.

Also, Jewish decent is ONLY recognized on a mother's side. I have Jewish anscestors also, but they're on my father's side so I'm technically not Jewish.

moif....

anti-semitism or anti-semitic has a different meaning in our culture. Did you read the information I provided about the exact root of this term? It was coined by a Nazi...so why should we expect it to be correct or make any sense? But the point of this term was to help support this person's views that Jews were in fact a race separate from the race of Germans and inferior. He used the word semite as a means of validating his "scientific" cause and of racially identifying Jews.
Yet the term anti-semitic/anti-semitism is widely used here in America and accepted as referring to Jewish people. Even the ADL uses the term.

No. See when a word has two meanings, they do not have to be linked. Semitic means 1) A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and N Africa including the Arabs and Jews OR 2) A Jew.

Since you are Jewish, you are Semitic.

Cyan

If the Malaysian PM is being accused of anti semitism, because of his remarks, is it not pertinant to the debate to clarify what those words mean?

And not just to Americans, but in relation to the people being accused?

As bucket said it was coined as a Nazi term. The term is as abhorable as the "N" in the context it's being discussed, IMO. It's a broad slang used towards Jews.

I agree with moif...being that the term anti-semitic was a term that was coined by a Nazi and was an integral part of the "philosophy" that was used in the Nazi genocide of Jews in Europe. I think this term and the history of it has much relevance in a debate where the question is of how the anti-semitic feelings in the ME will play out.

If Israel was attacked by Syria from a retaliation or whatever then sure enough the United States would get involved, and then the League of Arab Nations, and then well.. welcome to World War III.

The only hope is peace for the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but that would require the terrorist bombings to stop, Isreal from breaking cease fires, and the occupation to end, but I'm not too hopeful.

Doesn't it even bother you for one moment that 300+ homes were demolished 2 weeks ago in the Palestinian terroritories? And of course there has been retaliation for that action.

Both sides need to show they are commited to peace, and so far I don't see it.

The closest moment was the 2 month cease-fire, which Israel broke by firing on a Hamas leader's home. Was it worth it? Just plain sad.

It's an occupation and Israelis are getting attacked for it, just like what's happening in Iraq to the coalition, but if someone doesn't wisen up it could lead to dangerous levels for the entire world.

Syria HAS invaded Israel before. World War III did not break out. Israel has a very strong military.

Just because they invaded in the past doesn't mean that the political climate hasn't shifted and that militaries and arsenals haven't been upgraded. The mood towards Israel and the US is ALOT different now compared to 1967.

Right, but if anything Israel's Army is even stronger relative to Syria's; the U.S.'s is deeper involved in the Israeli conflict; the back drop of the Cold War is gone. Therefore WWIII is less likely than it was if Syria invaded Israel. If it didn't happen the first time, it wouldn't happen in today’s climate.

True, but because of the Fall of the USSR they're weapons supplies along with their WMD have gone on the black market, which in turn has upgraded alot of the third world countries militaries. Also, because of 9\11 and the rift between Arab Nations, the UN and the US\Israel, it's actually making it more likely that a global war would take place. in fact, that war has been going on for over two years as the War on Terrorism. It's only going to spread and get worse...

I agree that the fall of the USSR has allowed them access to more weapons. However this has also stalled the development of technology available to Syria. They may have more weapons but Israels are better. Just look at the difference between today's weapons and those used by the U.S. in the Gulf War.

Perhaps you have a point that the potential sides of a big war are defined more clearly these days.

Yes, that's what I meant! And I agree, Syria alone couldn't defeat Israel. And of course, the Six Day War showed that a combined power couldn't defeat Israel then, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't try again...

I think its important to remind you, that the Malaysian PM did not call for an attack. He specifically called for a non violent response.

For my own part, I would like to hear what kind of response he was thinking of, whether he means that Israel should be isolated economically, or whether the surrounding nations should cut off Israel's water supplies (which might be viewed as an open act of aggression) or whether or not he was thinking about the UN or some other diplomatic action...

Conceivably, the Arab nations could unite and refuse to trade in dollars for as long as America backed Israel, but if that is what he menat, then I doubt the house of Saudi will back him up.

moif..

Don't you think Israel is in a way being isolated economically?

Yes. But I don't know if that is what the Malaysian PM meant when he refered to a non violent solution.

He may have meant for something far more hostile, but without direct warfare, or he might simply have been suggesting an economic attack against the USA.

Oh I don't believe Syria could defeat Israel, as a matter fact Israel could DECIMATE Syria ( Nuclear wasteland ) but with todays tensions in the world with the War on Terror, Israeli Occupation, and the Coalition Occupation it could very well be powder keg to send us into a full blown world war.

Too many people are quick to kill thousands for the acts of a few, and that is a very DANGEROUS mindset.

I only hope I'm wrong, but so far Iraq has turned out exactly as I thought it would, and that's damn scary.