In a very older thread, from last year, i had outlined the main reasons of anti-semitism. Briefly, those were mainly two (with their sub-categories) : 1. The false image of the 'martyr' - from the holocaust, but also from the bible. 2. The false image of the 'special race' - from the bible, and zionism. Any people who are collectively seen as something (besides, no people are collectively something; inevitably this becomes a stereotype and prevents from more free examination of them) are bound to attract attention due to such a view of them. If someone is seen as a martyr then the more healthy elements in a society will want to first examine whether he trully is one, and then move to turn him into a regular person, since being a martyr is in reality either a negative quality (since supposedly one is in mourning of it, or harmed) or a potential prerequisite for superiority syndromes. Naturally no race can logically be seen collectively as special. Everyone who has lived in a different country than his own will have formed the view that there are different levels of society everywhere, and the main difference is the specific form that the various lower, medium, and higher cultures of each society take. Also there are people of different backgrounds, different intellectual capacities, different interests, different morality, different ideologies. Moreover, if one moves away from the realm of sociology, and into the realm of psychology, even more detailed examainations of the massive differences from individual to individual can be noticed. All this, very clearly, demonstrates that not only is it false to claim that an entire race is 'special', but that it is false to claim that anyone is special wholistically, albeit at least in people there are more serious grounds for arguing in favour of such an epithet. The notion of the 'martyr', although it is founded on the holocaust, in reality did very little ever in favour of the jewish people. A very simplistic sense of being special could have been its result, along with a collective dissaproval of old enemies, but that is too general to be seen as worth one's time, and besides it is very poor logic for a jewish person to base his view of himself on something which happened to his relatives during ww2. It is similarity very poor logic for one to sustain notions of grandeur based on history, and it seems highly likely that in all cases such a position is in reality the result of the fear that other than those general and quisi-mythical notions of such a collective identity, their bearer has little to show for his own self and accomplishments. The notion of a 'special race' is even less positive. Afterall it is a notion employed by various races in the course of history, from the ancient Greeks, to the English, the Germans, and the Jews. No person is the embodyment of his race, since his race itself is nothing stable, but is an abstract. One could link race with current culture, but then again even current culture is multi-faceted, and even in nations where their own cultural product holds a significant part of the entire cultural life in their country still inevitably one individual appreciation of that current culture will be evidently distinct from the next one. In reality, therefore, the notion of a 'special race' is a notion which exists quite unliked to any logical examination of it, and exists as an island of thought and emotion, and as a popular dream. Due to the unhealthy persistence of such notions of martyrdom and special race, Israel has brought anti-semitism on itself. This can be more easily seen antistrophically: a nation which has no globally known exagenarted views of itself (which does not mean that they do not exist; it only means that we do not hear of them) will not cause a similar racism against it. Most people in the Usa probably do not even know a single Latvian, or any example of Latvian culture, and so a massive anti-Latvianism could simply not occur. On the other hand there is some anti-latinoamerican sentiment, and some anti-eruopean sentiment, but both not due to logic, but because there simply are popular pools of association to be found for their formation. In the case of latin americans there is a fear of illegal aliens, and in the case of Europe a reactionary stance towards a percieved high-brow dissaproval, but both of these are important due to their nature as similar 'islands of thought and emotion' since mass sentiment is formed by mostly illogical reasons. The false views of Israel, in the Usa, also have very strong grounds on that country's alarming bi-polarity in regards to religion. Whereas in most of the EU religious sentiment is a lot less pronounced, in the Usa it seems that it has taken a totally different form. Israel is seen as a country which has connections with a god, and one could assume that this is enough justification for a myriad of problematic associations to follow. Moreover there is a second American false connection to Israel, and that is through the so-called 'war on terror'. While 'war on terror' has largely produced little more as a result that the ussual wars of old, it has on the other hand rapidly produced an ever larger polarity in the Usa, which can be seen in the typical extreme right or left positions, and the entire spectrum of their subcategories. However the war on terror, and Israel's war on Palestine, should not be seen as one and the same, despite Sharon's attempts to make a tautology of them in one of his last speeches. It should be realised that the 'war on terror' is once again only a catch-phrase, or a 'key-phrase'. It gains whatever substance one may see in it not by its actual rellevance to any reality, but from the deeper sentiment of the one who focuses on it. Far more logical than a waving of a flag with the letters 'war on terror' below its stripes, is to think of the amount of human suffering which is being caused as a very direct result of the war actions which are taking place. We have read of numbers of people who have been killed in the recent attacks. We read of 52 people which have died in a few bombings in a civilian airport, but we are not of the habbit of multiplying ourselves with that number so as to arrive at a conclusion of the amount of destruction. Instead it would seem that at least some people view that number as something very plain and insignificant. 3000 dead in the twin towers may seem more significant, but then following the same logic they are equally meaningless, much like 3000 multiplied by the zero of calculated indifference still produces a result of zero. So 52 times zero gives zero as well, when on the other end of the scale we have a blown-up notion of a just 'war on terror', which by itself manages to escape being multiplied with another zero, since is falsely seen as an actual intelligent thought. My view is that Israel has managed to survive up to now as nation, inspite of its acts, due to a very wrong web of connections which exist about anything related to semitism. The world has to rid itself of this entirely false notion of semitism, and view the jewish people as just one more race, with no more and no less privilidges than any other. The assymetrical retaliation against the attacks against it will in no way help it improve its position, and definately they will provide another basis for the hostility of the arab world against it to grow deeper. Violence will not bring an end to violence, and rage will not make rage dissappear. Ironically there is an arabic story which i can refer to so as to demostrate this view. It is part of the novel 'arabian nights' (1001 nights). This part is called 'the tale of the evil Jin'. The evil Jin, a spirit of some sort, was traped inside a bottle, and was thrown to the bottom of the sea. One day a fisherman fished out the bottle, and opened it, thus liberating the Jin. However his wonder soon turned into horror, as the Jin announced that for that act of Liberation it shall now take the fisherman's life. The fisherman begged for his life, and also noted to the Jin that he had freed it, so it was unfair to be punished for such an act. So the Jin went on to explain why it was set on killing him. It told of the first 10.000 years of his captivity, during which it had made the promiss that it would bring all joy in the world to the one who would liberate it. But the first 10.000 years passed, and it was not liberated. Then for the second 10.000 years it made the promiss that it would bring all wealth to its liberator. But again those passed, and it was still inside its bottle. So it then made the promiss that it would kill whoever had given it its freedom. The fisherman, using a trick, managed in the end to make the Jin return inside its bottle, and he then quickly closed the lid, after which he yelled angrily at the Jin, before throwing the bottle back to the sea. The moral of the story, though, was that the rage of the Jin was faced by the equal rage of the fisherman, and never did the fisherman stop to think of how differently one would feel due to his so long captivity. The Jin's point of view was very briefly presented, but of it we only read of its fearsome decision to murder its liberator, and not at all of what caused its captivity, or of how the years passed inside the small bottle. Likewise we should keep in mind that we do not know of how the captivated Palestinians feel, not being allowed to have a state for so many years, and living in an appalling state of siege. We should not only notice their acts of fear and rage, but wonder what has caused them. If we fail to do so then we will just have acted like that fisherman, and- who knows- perhaps if we happen to fish a similar bottle, the result in the end may be even more horrific.