Keating and The Dubliner respond
December 18, 2005 19:21 by BackSpin Editor
At The Dubliner, both Justin Keating and editor Trevor White respond to HonestReporting readers. White clings to the right of freedom of speech without acknowledging the responsibility that comes with it:
I hope the editor of honestreporting.com has the courage to print our columnist’s response, so that it might be read by all the people who cannot understand the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
In fact, it didn’t require much courage to highlight Keating’s response. Our readers certainly understand far more about anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism than anyone at The Dubliner. Keating’s conclusion?
Zionism is a blind alley. Entering it, Zionists abandoned Righteousness and the Rule of Law. The defence of Israel endangers all that is best, most noble and valuable for all mankind in the Jewish tradition. I am anti-Zionist because I am pro-Jewish.
Keating is now the darling of National Vanguard.
Stan
12:38 am
Dec 19, 2005
There is so much flawed logic in the National Vanguard article, it is hard to begin.
But for a moment, let us assume that his premise is true about the Jew’s lack of historical right to Israel (which it isn’t).
Virtually everyone is part of an immigrant group. Populations have always moved and come to rest in different lands creating the countries that now occupy the world.
It does not matter how Jews came to live in present day Israel. Israel is a fact. It exists as the Jewish state. Why does the author not question the validity of The United States, or Australia, or for that matter European countries. The reason is simple.
It is not anti zionism that he is portraying, it is anti semitism.
Stan
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Gregg
1:34 am
Dec 19, 2005
It is obvious that Keating has never read any Martin Luther King Jr., a much greater man than he regarding anti-semitism.
“And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.”
I think Keating needs to brush up on history.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Jack C
4:05 am
Dec 19, 2005
“Entering it, Zionists abandoned Righteousness and the Rule of Law.”
That conclusion in is so full of factual error and mischief in itself that it explains the dark places that Keating himself has entered when he took up a palce in the debate.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Ender
10:02 am
Dec 19, 2005
Trevor White response is a masterpiece in anti Israel propaganda but we have opened the door for him by attacking everything as “Anti-Semitism”.
Instead of reacting the way we did, cool heads should prevail and our response should have been:
It is OK to criticize Israeli government policy. There is NOTHING anti-Semitic in criticizing the policies of a specific government and in fact many of us, jews or not are happy that Israel is a democracy and that the acts of the elected government are challenged at times.
When does criticism of the government action turn into anti-Semitism? When the it is directed at the right of the Jewish people, as any other people, to have a home land.
When, like the President of Iran, the Dubliner is questioning Israel’s right to exist, no wonder that it’s articles are quoted with glee on Neo-Nazis web sites. I wonder if the Dubliner editor will have the courage to print this response which explains why his words are indeed directed against the legitimate right of the Jewish people (as a national group) to have a homeland.
PS . This has nothing to do with Judaism the religion (as he falsely tries to hide his hatred toward the people of Israel by claiming to be pro-Judaism)
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Joe
11:25 am
Dec 19, 2005
When the Dubliner questions the right of the Jewish people for homeland while claiming to be pro-Judaism, it is quiet clear what kind of Jews he likes, he likes the wandering Jews, the homeless, the unprotected, those closed behind the walls of overpopulated neglected ghettos, those who were perfect victims. Those described by the German thinker Goette while visiting a ghetto “I can’t comprehend how this unpleasent people produced the most important book of the mankind…” Thanks for your sympathy but I prefere freedom not our tormentors hypocritic symphaty.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
1:08 pm
Dec 19, 2005
With friends like Keating who needs enemies.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Brad Brzezinski
9:40 pm
Dec 19, 2005
On Dec. 5th I sent the following email to the editor, Trevor White.
“I am sure Mr. Keating’s article will generate much excitement over the veracity of his facts.
What interests me is the concept of putting right old wrongs given that nearly every country is currently governed by peoples who took it from others. Several Middle East countries were arbitrarily designated after WW1 and the last century was rife with displaced people making new lives far from their original homes. (An interesting example would be the Jews that were booted out of Arab countries after 1948 in approximately the same numbers as the displaced Palestinians.)
Mr. Keating needs to provide his plan to redress the balance everywhere. Either that or he must explain why it applies only to the Jewish state.”
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
I received no answer to what I believe is a valid line of thinking. I would not waste time rebutting Keating’s “Modified History” because people who write such things believe what they want to believe.
I know why Keating and White think they cannot be anti-Semites. They too should understand that for an Israeli, living in The Jewish State, to suggest that they may no longer have their country is inherently anti-Semitic because The Israelis represent The Jews. Furthermore, Israel exists as a bulwark against constant killing of Jews throughout history. It is hence understandable that many Jews living outside Israel also consider Keating’s sentiments to be anti-Semitic. Finally, such defensive sentiments are natural. (Try writing an article suggesting the Palestinians should move to Egypt and Jordan.)
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Anonymous
6:13 am
Dec 21, 2005
“Palestinian nationalism is a blind alley. Entering it, palestinian nationalists abandoned Righteousness and the Rule of Law [and bombed everyone the didn't like]. The defence of palestinains endangers all that is best, most noble and valuable for all mankind in the palestinain tradition. I am anti-palestinain because I am pro-Islam.”
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Ben
6:15 am
Dec 21, 2005
I hope the editor of the Dubliner has the courage to print Honest Reporting’s response, so that it might be read by all the people who cannot understand that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are the same.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
aunursa
4:43 pm
Dec 21, 2005
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a strong supporter of Israel.
I have a dream for peace
Nevertheless the quote about anti-Zionists in the post above is from a purported letter that cannot be documented and is apparently a hoax.
Letter by Martin Luther King a Hoax
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
zacharia
12:42 am
Dec 26, 2005
The Jewish population in Israel grew in a direct relationship to the diminishing Jewish population in Europe and then the Middle East. Many Jews rejected Zionism at a time when the Reform movement was growing and emancipation was progressing. It wasn’t until the European world and later the Muslim world decided that the Jews did not belong that they began making their way to Israel, with minimal or no choice. Borders were closed to the Jews nearly globally, with the exception of Israel’s right of return.
During the Second World War the idea became popular that a Jew was not a religious choice, but a genetic race. As incorrect as this may be, the Jew became bound to this definition because it is what their enemies believed. The right of return was to protect Jews around the world from those that believed Jews to be a race (or anti-race).
In this regard the state of Israel’s policy was in direct response to the anti-semites claim that to be Jewish is not a choice. Half-Jews, converted Jews, Christian Jews and athiest Jews were all Jews, and as such subject to the same treatment.
Jewish communities throughout the world were secluded. The reason for this is that the Jews were always considered a seperate people. It was in part their desire to be seperate, and in part the host government’s refusal to accept them as equal. (Here lies the chicken and the egg paradigm – as to determine which came first) The reality is that each never accepted the other because the were different.
The Jews must have a home somewhere, and they must come from somewhere. A home that they cannot be thrown out of. The Jews, no doubt felt an attachment to Israel, and the world recognized that attachment.
The reality of the Jews history in that part of the world and their connection to it can be seen not only in the Jews’ attachment to the land, but the land’s attachment to the Jews. Many Jewish cities remained in name despite Jewish removal from the land, inc. Jerulasem. The Jews’ attachment to every host land has been put in question, and to question the Jews’ right to Israel, not just the land of their history, but at this point, the land of their present, is to put the Jew in the same place he was before the war, unsure if he belongs anywhere.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0