Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Holocaust Survivor, Dies at 87 (opens in new tab)

> I think what bothers me the most about all of this is how criticism of the national policy of the state of Israel is reworked by certain opponents as anti-Semitic attacks.

Because this criticism is too often intertwined with attacks not on israeli policies, but on Israel's right to exist. And yes, saying that jews don't deserve a nation state is definetly anti-semitic.

> So often it feels like proponents of questionable Israeli policies seem to use the Holocaust, Israel's fight for survival through the endless wars from its creation through the 1970s to justify an aggressive and hostile stance.

Because fight for survival and hostile stance are directly related.

Ask yourself: is average citizen of a country neighboring yours sees you as an enemy? Have he or his parents gone to war against you? Will he help you if you get attacked? Or may he'll be glad to see you die?

Being peaceful and trusting is a privilege that Israel can't afford.

| I think what bothers me the most about all of this is how criticism of the national policy of the state of Israel is reworked by certain opponents as anti-Semitic attacks... Why is this?

Let's say extremes from both sides of any issue in general tend to over-exaggerate...

You seriously think that the worst part is unfair propaganda by Zionists that exists to such an extent that it overwhelms any countervailing anti-Semitic reworking of anti-Semitism into slanting of news against Israel? Given the huge size of Arab and Moslem populations around the world compared to Jewish populations, the survey results that show their complete acceptance of anti-Semitism, and given the long long and recent history of anti-Semitism all across Europe... given that, to what do you attribute this "worst part"? Are you alleging that the Jews control the media?

Also, while we are on the subject, what races are "some of you best friends"?

I'm not attempting to attack you personally or accuse you, just trying to shake your intellectual lapels a bit to reconsider your stance, for what I've noticed is that your question comes up in every single discussion of this issue, to the extent that it sounds like a mantra to me. Propaganda itself.

Peace.

Israel is a Jewish state. Some feel that it is held up to unreasonably high standards vs. the rest of the world.

Would you call the US aggressive and hostile? Would you call Russia aggressive and hostile? How about China? UK? France? South Korea? North Korea? Iran? Iraq? Lebanon? Turkey? (The list could go on and on)... Are these countries in the same situation you describe, i.e. fighting for their survival?

What exactly is the criteria to be considered aggressive and hostile? What would be a reasonable response to various security threats and hostile actions of others? If you apply that criteria fairly - that's fine. If you single out Israel, and filter the events to suit some agenda, maybe not so fine.

Oh, so ethnic cleansing, genocide, widespread discrimination, and expulsion must involve the population going down!

See http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printer...

Would it sound more reasonable if we say "Ethnically cleanse at the rate that the international community allows"?

Building homes on illegal lands, forced expulsion and demolition of Palestinian homes, carpet bombing of a prison city, discrimination against Palestinian Arabs at all levels of society - I think that's quite close to the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, and in some cases, genocide.

I believe the UN special rapporteur: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-palestinian-israel-un-idUKB...

You laugh, but the Bay Area is like one level of NIMBYism away from Palestine.

I think Wiesel has done much good and his writing and very public campaigns to insure that the horrors of the Holocaust are never forgotten are what he shall be remember for. Still, he is a man and a man is nothing, if fallible. In his memoirs, "All Rivers Run to the Sea", he exhibits a certain hostility when his writings are questioned; he quotes from his essay "A Plea for the Survivors":

"You who have not experienced their anguish, who do not speak their language and do not mourn their dead, think before you offend them, before you betray them.… Wait until the last survivor, the last witness, has joined the long procession of silent shadows whose judgment one day will resound and shake the earth and its Creator."

Some allege that parts of Night are too implausible and historically inaccurate. But then again, I think he wrote it as a novel rather than a historical document.

I've always been amazed people can still have faith after things like the holocaust. I'm agnostic myself, something I'm sure you didn't need me to say... But I don't know if there is a god or gods or afterlife at all - but if there is, I'm pretty sure they don't intervene in our daily lives. Believing he/she/they do is accepting a policy of extreme incompetence, or admitting that our well being isn't always at the forefront.

At least admitting that God does give us free will and does provide an afterlife, but doesn't step in when shit gets ugly in this life (and I mean levels of horrors you would have trouble believing actually exist) allows faith to continue with some acceptance of logic.

But the idea that everything bad is of man, and everything good is of God is a pretty untenable position, it seems to me.

But of course, I am not a man of faith, and my life is pretty good. So these aren't surprising positions I'm sure.