In this piece I am not trying to draw where I think the boundary between criticism of Israeli policy and anti-semitic demonisation lies. I am simply insisting that such a boundary exists. I am also insisting that neither serious defenders of Israel nor anyone on the serious left denies its existence. The people who deny the existence of the important distinction between criticism and demonisation live in the anti-Zionist movements. The people who think that there is a concerted global attempt to delegitimise criticism of Israel with a charge of "anti-semitism" are already relying on the myth of a "Zionist" or Jewish conspiracy. And the people for whom the term "anti-semitism" automatically triggers a counter-attack against "the Zionists" have moved a long way from the anti-racist politics with which many of them were politically raised.
Conservative professors Mearsheimer and Walt published a paper that argued that the "Israel lobby" tricks America into fighting for Israel's interest in the world at the expense of its own.
It was all too predictable that when this paper came under heavy criticism, the supporters of this type of conspiracy theorising would try to present Mearsheimer and Walt as courageous victims of the same "lobby", now allegedly acting to close down academic freedom with a malicious cry of "anti-semitism".
Saturday's leader (subscription needed) in the Financial Times makes exactly this case. I want to nail one particular element of the FT argument, although this does not mean that I accept the rest. I will focus here on a claim that is made again and again: people are morally blackmailed into silence, claims the FT, by "the fear that any criticism of Israeli policy and US support for it will lead to charges of anti-semitism".
Only a person that has never thought seriously about the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism could possibly be silenced by this fear.
Think about it. Have you ever heard anybody claim that "any criticism of Israeli policy..." is anti-semitic? Sure, you've often heard it said that "the Zionists" make this claim, but have you ever heard a "Zionist" actually do it?
Now think about it again. It would be transparently ridiculous for anybody to claim that criticism of Israeli policy is anti-semitic. Wouldn't it?
This FT editorial appeared on April Fools Day. The best April Fools jokes are the ones that seem plausible - but when you discover that you've been had, you realise that you ought to have been able to work out for yourself that this was a hoax. You didn't need to know that it was a hoax because if you had been thinking clearly, you'd have guessed. This one, however, is no joke. The claim, that critics of Israeli policy are silenced by the malicious cry of "anti-semitism" appears routinely. It is propagated by people who have thought about it carefully. It is propagated by people who say they want a license to criticise Israeli policy for various reasons: either because they want to demonise, to sew hatred, to push "Zionist" conspiracy theories, or to single out Israel for a unique pariah status.
Indeed the idea that one requires a license to criticise Israeli policy already pre-supposes the existence of a hugely powerful, well organised, richly funded "lobby" that has assumed the right to issue such licenses.
David Duke, for example, former leader of the Klu Klux Klan, and also a big fan of the Mearsheimer and Walt piece, says the following:
It is perfectly acceptable to criticize any nation on the earth for its errors and wrongs, but lo and behold, don't you dare criticize Israel; for if you do that, you will be accused of the most abominable sin in the modern world, the unforgivable sin of anti-Semitism!
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, says much the same thing:
For far too long the accusation of anti-semitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government, as I have been.
Tam Dalyell agrees:
The trouble is that anyone who dares criticise the Zionist operation is immediately labelled anti-Semitic
"Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism" insists Michael Neumann, philosophy professor at Trent university in Canada, while Norman Finkelstein, teacher of political theory at de Paul University, Chicago, writes that one central purpose of his new book is to expose the way that the charge of anti-semitism is misused to "delegitimise criticism" of the occupation.
Gilad Atzmon, saxophonist and anti-Zionist says:
Zionist lobbies present all critical views of Israel as a form of anti-semitism.
Why are all these different individuals from entirely different political traditions raising precisely the same straw-man argument?
The effect of this straw-man argument is to muddy the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy - which nobody serious, no Jewish communal organisation and no mainstream Israeli politician says is illegitimate - and the kind of demonisation, conspiracy theorising, blood libels, and misrepresentations that some argue do run the risk of building the ideological and emotional foundations for the emergence of an anti-semitic movement.
To go back over the examples above.
David Duke's interest in pretending that there is no difference between legitimate criticism and anti-semitism needs no explanation.
Ken Livingstone, who seems to be acquiring a habit of employing low-level racist abuse against Jews, certainly has a record of doing more than criticise Israeli policy. He condemns bus bombing in his own city but "understands" it and refuses to condemn it when it happens in Israel. He welcomes the anti-semitic Yusef al Qaradawi to City Hall as an honoured guest. Some may accuse Livingstone of anti-semitism, but it is not because he "criticises the policies of Israeli governments". It may be that the charge of anti-semitism against Livingstone is not proven. But it is clear that the charge is not levelled against him because of straightforward policy disagreements.
Tam Dalyell accused the Blair government of being unduly influenced by a Jewish cabal that tricks the Blair government into following Jewish rather than British interest (whatever he might have thought "Jewish interest" was). Again, some may accuse Dalyell of anti-semitism as a result, but this is not because he has made measured and reasonable criticism of Israeli policy.
Michael Neumann says the following, in the ever-so-radical Counterpunch:
The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it. It came to the Middle East with Zionism and it will abate when Zionism ceases to be an expansionist threat.
This again, is something other than "criticism of Israeli policy".
However we may judge Norman Finkelstein's work, the people who accuse him of anti-semitism are not doing so because he "criticises" the occupation. They do so because they think that his analysis that there is a "Holocaust industry" that is exploited by some to hide Israeli human rights abuses behind the smoke of Auschwitz and Treblinka is dangerous and offensive.
Gilad Atzmon, the saxophonist - who has written "I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus" - risks muddying the distinction between criticism of Israeli policy on the one hand and the demoniation of Jews on the other.
I am not arguing that all of the above are anti-semites. I am arguing that the fact that they raise the straw-man argument - "the Zionists call me an anti-semite because I criticise Israeli policy" - should ring an alarm bell for anyone that hears them do it.
Mainstream Israeli politicians and Jewish communal leaders may be "Zionists" (whatever that term may mean); some (but certainly not all) may be right wing nationalists; some (but not all) may be tainted by anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia. But they are not idiots. They do not claim that "any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic".
Back to the FT leader - the hostility to the Mearsheimer and Walt paper does not result from their criticism of Israeli policy. There is widespread hostility to the paper because Mearsheimer and Walt spin a coarse conspiracy theory in the language of an academic paper. It is because the claim of an unpatriotic Jewish (or "Zionist") conspiracy keys in very closely with old libels that have caused Jews so much trouble in the past. It is also because "the Lobby" charge is impossible to refute: successful refutation is taken as evidence of "the lobby's" power. It is because there will be some that refuse to notice that the paper has been discredited by academic critique and will continue to cite it as an authority - for who knows what nonsense.
Comments in chronological order (Total 85 comments)
3 April 2006 7:54PM
ps I meant why cite the killing Jesus bit?
3 April 2006 8:02PM
David Hirsh is the editor of Engage that specialises in this sort of thing. There is a book that came out in 1984 by Steve Cohen called That's Funny You don't look Anti-Semitic.
It is available for free on the Engage web site http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/contents.html">here.
The book is useful reading for those that do not get the difference.
Being critical of the policies of Sharon or Netanyahu or the Israeli government is not antisemitism and no one with any sound mind really says that it is.
However if that criticism comes with comments such with comments such as that by the so called "left wing" Gilad Atzmon who refers to America as the "Jewnited States of Jewmerica" then the question needs to be raised as to what is the motivation for criticism.
If those that are being critical of Israel, believe the State of Israel should be "smashed" but every other state in the world however horrendous can continue then the question needs to be raised.
It is my opinion that many people who demomise Israel and use language highly offensive to most Jews comparing Israel to Nazi Germany etc etc may honestly not believe that they are anti-semitic. The question they should ask themselves is why does the far right have a very similar view to the far left?
3 April 2006 8:03PM
Sorry the link didnt work.. Try below
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/ressources/funny/contents.html
3 April 2006 8:16PM
"Apologist monkey's"?????
3 April 2006 8:44PM
John Mearsheimer gave an interview to American Amnesia, a blog that is usually left-wing. He explains why he opposed invading Iraq. Funny, he never mentions Jews or the Jewish lobby or Israel anywhere in the interview. I don't know what happened between then and the LRB article.
It is antisemitic to believe that any Jewish American politician would put Israel's interests before America's interests.
The Chief Rabbi's comments were not just about the boycott of Caterpiller. There were many other dubious comments made by the leaders of the Church of England.
3 April 2006 8:56PM
The Chief Rabbi was not responding to criticism of Israeli policy. He was responding to the Boycott Israel campaign.
The Rev Dr Stephen Sizer, a leader of the boycott campaign in the Church of England, responded in the Independent newspaper to the chief Rabbi's comments with this:
"Why has the Archbishop faced a torrent of criticism over this vote? Simple: the people in the shadows know that Caterpillar is only the first. "Let justice roll" (Amos 5:24)."
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article346528.ece
Why does Sizer refer to those that criticise the boycott (including the Chief Rabbi) as "the people in the shadows"? Does he not understand that this is an accusation that has been made against Jews for a long time. Does he not understand that this is the substance of the "Protocols" libel? That Jews run the world secretly and from the shadows?
Sizer pretends to focus on the boycott of Caterpillar for what he sees as its connection to the Israeli record of house demolitions in occupied Palestine. But he is clear about what he really wants - "Caterpillar is only the first".
Sizer wants a total economic and cultural boycott of Israel. It is this misrepresentation of Israel as the state in the world that most deserves to be shunned - the only pariah state - that worries many. Not criticism of Israeli government policy.
3 April 2006 9:18PM
But Jonathan Sacks' comments were not against Rev Sizer's comments, but against the General Synod's decision. The churches are trying to encourage ethical investment and disinvestment in firms whose products are used by armies is not unusual. As far as teh Synod was concerned I am sure it was a political and not an anti Jewish act, but that is not how it was seen, and that does make political criticism of Israel seem different from that of other countries.
3 April 2006 9:59PM
But David that entirely proves my point. Yet again, and I hope deliberately, you have muddied the destinction 'Jews' with 'Israel' with 'Zionism' with 'anti-semitism'.
"Zionist lobbies present all critical views of Israel as a form of anti-semitism"
is quite different from saying:
"I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus"
And neither statement is anti-semitic. How easy distinctions are a-mudded!
3 April 2006 11:12PM
cpnoconnor: No - but then I've never heard a politician claim that they want to screw the poor either.
Very very well put!
4 April 2006 1:00AM
From my own experience of commenting on news sites and blogs it is actually very rare that criticism of Israel's foreign policy draws the accusation of anti-semitism. What is very common is that no matter how factual and contained your criticism may be, you are very often labeled as simply anti-Israeli. As Israel is considered to be in most people eyes a jewish state, by defining someone as anti-Israeli you imply they are anti-semitic by natural association. For me it is this lack of distinction between the state of Israel and it's foreign policy which causes the most problems.
4 April 2006 1:44AM
Johnie is absolutely right. And it's similar sentiments that were no doubt behind this amazing statement:
"One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all."
By anti-Zionism he meant opposition to the existence of a constitutionally Jewish state, but it could easily be misinterpreted as an example of what Hirsh has claimed does not exist.
By the way, the quoted statement is of course complete rubbish. The mere fact that the Jews did not have a state of their own, did not morally entitle them to set up an explicitly Jewish state, in a land where Jews, Christians and Muslims all had legitimate claims to long-standing residency, cultural heritage etc.
4 April 2006 1:51AM
Professional apologists for Zionism would love us to waste our time in inconclusive, quasi-theological wrangling about how to tell the sheep from the 'antisemitic' goats. I propose cutting through all that Talmudic obfuscation and following the money.
If it's true that Jewish organisations and individuals contribute three-fifths of the Democrats' funds and a substantial slice of the Republicans' too, need we look further to explain the power of the Lobby, however you define it? Contemplate how many millions you need even to win a Senate race.
All contributions gratefully received, no doubt-- but the 2pc of the population who are Jewish seem strikingly keener than other ethnic groups to keep American politicians in office. In return for what, one wonders-- silence? How many vigorous debates have there been on the floor of House or Senate about the links between the USA and Israel and the endless stream of gold which flows from Washington to Jerusalem?
If AIPAC is just another pressure group, why do gentile politicians queue up to flatter it at its annual gathering, even when two former senior officials are under indictment for receiving classified US security data?
And if AIPAC has such a modest influence, why is it bankrolled to the tune of tens of million dollars a year by its sponsors? Aren't they sick of throwing good dollars after bad by now, or are they getting what they pay for?
4 April 2006 2:16AM
Oh how dull a lot of this gets. People should realise that there is a difference between criticising Israel and SINGLING OUT Israel for special treatment.
If someone is arguing for boycotts of hundreds of countries that they thnk are oppressive to minorities so be it. However those arguing for a boycott of Israel are not arguing for a boycott of other countries.
What needs to be determined is why is the only country they are singling out for sepecial traeatment the Jewish State?
If we look at all the Muslim states in the world.. The treatment of minorities is far worse. Even under the new Afghanistan regime there has been a story in the press this week of a Christian carrying a bible and for that horrendous sin the punishment seems to be death.
Hang on a second..There are lots of Muslims living in Israel and they all get a vote. There are Arab political parties and the list goes on.
There is a Hamas charter that states the following -
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. "
There is an Iranian President who denies the Holocaust occurred and argued that Israel should be wiped off the map and at the same time wants nuclear weapons.
With all of this going onin the world, why is it that the only country that some in the Church of England have tried to boycott is the State of Israel?
4 April 2006 2:38AM
David Hirsh sure knows how to call a spade a badminton racket. It's just the same old pro/anti Israel discussion continued into semantics. According to Hirsh Israel's supporters are the embodiment of wisdom... whereas its critics don't know what they're talking about. Duh! His view totally oppposes my own experiences. As soon as I discuss the evils of Zionism with my Israeli friends they accuse me of being anti-semitic (though why an anti-semite would have jewish friends is beyond me). The term "semitic" was originally a term for a group of languages consisting of Arabic, Amharic (Ethiopian), Tigrinya (Eritrean) and Hebrew. In the 19th C. -in keeping with nationalist sentiments all over Europe- Zionists wanted to define themselves not only as followers of a religion but also as a race (pedigree or bloodline). The only reason for this was to make territorial claims. They appropriated the term "semitic" for themselves, excluding people from other semitic language groups (despite there being a lot more people speaking Arabic and Amharic than Hebrew). Thus the term "anti-semitic" is nonsensical, based on pseudo-scientific racial beliefs of both crackpot Aryans and Zionists. And if Judaism is religion and not a race then the term "anti-jewish" should suffice. The fact remains that Judaism (the religion) and Israel (the nationality) and Zionism (the fundamentalist nationalist political movement) have become so intertwined that most jews (no matter how secular they are) identify with the state of Israel, which is fundamentally rooted in political Zionism.
4 April 2006 3:01AM
Belsizepark... I boycott Israeli products for the same reason I boycotted South-African products during the Apartheid regime and if I had lived in the 1930's I would have boycotted German products too.
If you talk about "SINGLING OUT Israel for special treatment"... it is precisely what all western goverments are doing. Despite Israel consequently ignoring UN resolutions they keep receiving billions of dollars in aid. Compare the international pressure on Iran for wanting to develop nuclear technology and the so called reason for invading Iraq, whereas no one cares a hoot that Israel has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Talk about special treatment!
4 April 2006 5:35AM
altrui April 3, 2006 07:52 PM Cambridge/gbr
To David:
"You wrote:
"Gilad Atzmon, the saxophonist - who has written "I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus" - risks muddying the distinction between criticism of Israeli policy on the one hand and the demoniation of Jews on the other."
So why cite it?"
Why shouldn't he cite another piece of evidence which shows the hysterical anti-Semitic mind set of these so called "critics?"
Why do you excuse, Altrui.
How is anyone going to take you seriously if you make apologies for such excrescences?
4 April 2006 9:20AM
Red Prince,
Rather than just stating that Americans do claim that criticsim of Israel is anti-semitism. Pease give a good source for it.
Well the largest Jewish organisation that deals with such matters in the USA is the ADL (Anti Defamatiuon League.
Here is what they say
http://www.adl.org/media_watch/magazines/20050106-The+Nation.htm
" ADL and others who have been warning about the current surge of anti-Semitism never claim......., that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. We do say that efforts to delegitimize or demonize the Jewish state or judge Israel by a different standard than any other country is in itself anti-Semitic or, at least, legitimizes anti-Semitism."
And how did I find this? I did a google search on "criticism of Israel is anti semitism" and thaat is where I found it. What else did I find on that search. Well on the first page is a link to "National Vangaurd" a neo Nazi web site that claims Ariel Sharon said it (he didn't). There is a link to the Holocaust denier, David Irving'site. And all of that was just on the first page of the Google search.
I think that just goes to show that David Hirsh is correct.
4 April 2006 9:40AM
Like I've said on other posts, I think the more the west keeps out of this, the quicker they can sort it out amongst themselves. As for David Hirsh, that you are even associated with some of these people should, in itself, make you stop and think.
4 April 2006 2:38PM
Belsizepark: "Of course they line up at every other lobbying group's annual gathering too. Tell me, how is AIPAC any different in this way than the teacher's union, the AFL-CIO, the Realtors, the sugar beet growers, or any other pressure group?"
Well, AIPAC's a bit more special, as well as a bit more crucial to America's wellbeing, than those sugar beet growers:
"It's undoubtedly a measure of the Jews' progress in American society that the biggest yearly gathering of Jewish political activists, the Aipac policy conference, has become the most sought-after Washington platform for politicians looking to launch or advance � or, on occasion, salvage � a career. There was a time when the world's movers and shakers didn't much want to be seen around our kind. Now there's nothing they want more than to curry our favor and bask in our reflected glory. That's probably a good thing.
That said, we're on murkier ground when a failed administration decides it would be a good idea to send its least popular figure to appear before this august assembly. It means they've sized up our crowd to be a safe haven, an audience they can count on to give them a warm reception even when nobody else will. That's not an indication of clout. It's a mark of fealty. It means they know they've got us in their pocket.
That's the message that was broadcast to the world last week when Vice President Cheney appeared before Aipac, properly known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. If nobody else wants Dick Cheney, he can always count on the Jews..."
(Forward, March 2006)
AIPAC doesn't stand for the majority of real American Jews, 70pc of whom oppose the Iraq War. It purports to be an impartial umbrella group reflecting the spectrum of Jewish opinion to legislators. In truth it's gung-ho for neocons at home and for Likud and even more diehard Zionists in Israel. It's an agent of influence for a foreign government.
4 April 2006 2:56PM
I have got absolutely no idea from what "UnionJock" writes whether s/he is from the political left, centre or right, socialist, traditional antisemite or fascist.
It's interesting that we live in times when it's sometimes difficult to tell, isn't it?
4 April 2006 3:36PM
David H: the good thing with you is, it's alarmingly easy to tell...
4 April 2006 4:06PM
Enea April 4,
You are a walking talking mass of anti-Semitic cliches all of them false.
4 April 2006 4:43PM
Enea, Not that I am in favour of it, but why aren't you boycotting your own country, USA?
4 April 2006 5:54PM
Yes thats right Enea. The Israeli state has a policy of murdering innocent children. Especially at this time of year with Passover approaching.
4 April 2006 7:12PM
It seems that this forum has spiralled out of control and is probably winding itself up. Nevertheless Enea (was it me or is that most of the CIA world 'we're keeping an eye on you' fact book he's just copy-pasted) raises an interesting question when asking:
"Or are you [like David] blessed with a god-given anti-semitic radar?"
Nowhere on this blog has it been identified how we are to identify modern 'anti-semitic' outlooks and behaviour � this leaves jews feeling paranoid and everyone accusing them of it.
At the end of Enea's lengthy post he concludes:
"I think Scribe5, D. Hirsh, et al are just exploiting jewish suffering to further political goals."
Which is interesting because it's not dissimilar to what 'anti-semites' have said throughout history � jewish suffering, afterall, dates back 2000 years in which jews have never (until recently) governed themselves.
Perhaps Enea thinks, like so many jews in the latter half of the 20th century hoped, that the shooting, burning and gasing of such a huge number � on top of the earlier Russian pogroms etc. � was enough to put an end once and for all to the ever-present ebb and flow of anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe. Perhaps he has no need to fear the possibility of its return.
Likewise Mearsheimer and Walt's diatribe (when it's not veering into conspiracy talk) falls back on the fact that wealthy jews (both secular and religious) lobby various branches of the US government to make sure their interests are catered for.
A brief look at the history of european jewry (as well as arabian) will show that its communities often sought to prove themselves useful, law-abiding subjects, perhaps in the hope of ingratiating themselves and earning more liberties. Hence the often caricatured image of the submissive jew. Is it possible that the existence of israel has changed all that for good?
Viewed in this light the existence of even a single arm of this 'Lobby' is as unsurprising as it should be uncontentious. Nevertheless there is a problem and the problem lies in the conduct of the state of israel - albeit under sporadically intense pressure.
However, it might be interesting if this blog moves away from bickering about how many babies israel has killed this week and moves back to the question in hand � expressed terribly by Mr Hirsh � which seems to be:
Is it possible that criticism of the policies of successive israeli governments can descend into a more generalised anti-jewish sentiment?
+ my addition:
If so, how is this anti-jewish sentiment expressed and how is it to be detected?
Please note:
I have refrained from using 'anti-semitic' when referring to contemporary anti-jewish sentiment � many have pointed out that it's a flawed phrase � I disagree, often for the precise reasons stated by those who question its accuracy.
4 April 2006 7:41PM
PalestineDemolished April 4, 2006 06:36 PM Kaliningrad/rus
"To balance up matters, has anyone delved into the ancient phenomenon of anti-gentilism?
Judaism's sacred literature alarmingly contains more than racist and sub-human suggestions, edicts and laws against non-Jews, stretching back millennia.
Try that one for size!"
Typical post by a pogromist wanna be.
You are not even original poster from Kaliningrad. You just repeating the anti-Semitic idiocy that has kept you country down for hundreds of years.
Palestine demolished, indeed. It's Russia demolished by anti-Semites like yourself.
You and Hitler have a lot in commnon.
4 April 2006 7:51PM
Good observations Max
4 April 2006 8:36PM
"Nowhere on this blog has it been identified how we are to identify modern 'anti-semitic' outlooks and behaviour ? this leaves jews feeling paranoid and everyone accusing them of it."
Max Oswald,
You may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.
On this thread, for example, there is no clearer example of an anti-Semite than the poster from Kalingrad calling himself "Palestine demolished."
Read his posts and then tell me that he is not an anti-Semite.
Now, is it an eccident that he hates Judaism, and not just "Zionists," and is also for "Palestinian rights?"
Could it be that anti-Semites use the so called "oppression of the the Palestinians" (not that I agree with Israeli policy on the West Bank) as a pretext to push their hatred of Jews?
I found it really ironic that, Sweden, one of the most pro-Palestinian countries in Europe is also one of the most anti-Semitic today harboring a deep distrust of Jews and has a "hidden" anti-Semitic and por Nazi past?
One is then excused for asking if Sweden isn't using the Pelestinian issue to cover up it's own racism.
The other issue that needs to be addressed is that the reason like Mayor Livingston and David Duke don't like to be called anti-Semitic is that they peceive that the political climate isn't hospitable to open "anti-Semites."
Had this been 1910, or 1925, it would be different David Duke and Gollaway and Livingston would have been proud to be identified with the anti-Semites.
The same, I suspect, is true for a number of posters here.
4 April 2006 10:04PM
Enea April 4, 2006 08:43 PM Herndon/usa Max:
"I do not think anti-jewishness as such cannot come back, I'm just saying it is supremely dangerous to equate criticism of a state like Israel with anti-jewish feeling, because following that reasonning in reverse would slowly but surely bring us to a point where every reprensible action of the Israeli state reflects as a negative on all jews... And that's just stupid.:
Stupid or not, that has already happened helped by people like you.
"Furthermore I do not believe anti-jewish sentiment to be a major problem on our governments' agendas nowadays, and I don't believe jews get disciminated more than blacks, arabs, latinos, slavic populations etc..."
This is more bullshit. For the moment that may be true, but even if it isn't does that mean it's all right for Jews to be exposed to prejudice of the non governamental type?
In the US by the way there is no anti-Black or anti-anyone else's agenda either.
In Europe, on the other hand, on the local level anti-Jewish views are pretty common. This is especially true in Eastern Europe but also true in places like Sweden and France.
Your posts are wishful thinking, of the malicious kind, Enea.
4 April 2006 10:47PM
Enea April 4, 2006 10:23 PM Herndon/usa SCribe5:
"Having lived in the US, Europe and the Middle East for quite some time, I have heard very few anti-jewish comments (most in the US) compared to racist attacks on Blacks and other minorities."
You are hardly neither a neutral, nor an objective source for reporting on anti-Semitism in the US and elsewhere.
I find it hard to believe that you heard "very few" anti Jewish comments in the Arab world.
Arab friends of mine told me that they heard them every day.
In any case, enecdotal experience doesn't count.
5 April 2006 1:12AM
Enea: "oconnor, enea didn't say "soldiers" he say children." Um yes, it was a mistake on my part when I said Palestinian soldiers, as i meant Palestinian children - something that should have been fairly obvious from the context. Something so obvious in fact that you picked up on it your response. So thanks for that slightly odd response...
"Your anger at Jews is palpable it is also misplaced."
Indeed. Care to actually to back this statement up with, I dunno, an argument of any kind (please note - endless assertions do not count)?
I know you have trouble grasping this (which in a subtle way, rather disprove Hirsh's point), but I don't see that the actions of the Israeli state have any connection with Jews who live outside Israel (unless of course, like Mr Hirsh, they defend its actions). Israelis and jews are not the same thing you see.
5 April 2006 2:56AM
cpnoconnor April 5, 2006 01:12 AM "I know you have trouble grasping this (which in a subtle way, rather disprove Hirsh's point), but I don't see that the actions of the Israeli state have any connection with Jews who live outside Israel (unless of course, like Mr Hirsh, they defend its actions). Israelis and jews are not the same thing you see."
You contradict yourself, oconnor, not that is surprises me.
First, I agree that Israelis are not the same people as those who live elsewhere. However, when you add parenthetically that they are not the same "unless of course, like Mr Hirsh, they defend its actions," then what you are saying is that Jews unlike other people who support Israeli action will be held to a different standard. In other words, you are limiting my freedom to support Israel against unthinking attacks like yours. Besides, you may say that Jews who do not live in Israel are not the same as Israeli Jews, but the physical and deadly attacks on Jews who live elsewhere by pro-Palestinian fanatics of different stripes, often supported by leftists, tell another story.
Moreover, you also don�t know how to read since your assertion that David Hirsh supports Israeli is utterly false. In fact he supports, as do I, a two State solution.
What I oppose, is sweeping condemnations of the Jewish State by people who couldn�t care less about human rights elsewhere. When was the last time you condemned the violation of the rights of the Kurds, or of the Tibetans, the Black Sudanese, etc?
5 April 2006 9:01AM
So let me get this perfectly clear.
Scribe 5 is not a Jew?
5 April 2006 10:01AM
But Scribe 5 isn't Jewish? Is that right?
5 April 2006 1:14PM
Altrui, why does it matter if Scribe 5 is or isn't a Jew? /
5 April 2006 1:29PM
Have you read his posts?
5 April 2006 2:35PM
I didn't think 'gentile zionists', to such an obnoxious extreme, existed.
While I disagree passionately with extremism of every sort I have ever come across, but up to now I can at least understand where they come from, or why they might think like that. The debates here on the subject have opened a whole new perspective on the subject for me. I am no expert on the history and politics of Israel, but I would like to think I know a bit more than your average bloke, yet I have restricted my comments on the subjects to those on which I have at lest some knowledge, when I have a certain point I wish to get across, and a refusal to be accused of anti-jewishness because of this or that policy over there.
Scribe5's position and method completely baffles me. He is quite entitled to his views, and my (very brief) exchanges with him have been robust, (I have my own way of arguing) but such strident and offensively trenchant tactics are difficult to fathom even of the most outrageous jewish radical but this...its just so unhelpful isn't it? I can only assume there is an aspect of American politics that has somehow escaped my attention. If someone could explain this to me, ideally Scribe5, I would be willing, Fortune save me, to listen.
5 April 2006 2:38PM
BobLord: I find comparing the Israel/Palestine conflict with monotheistical ambivalence to homosexuals and mass migration issues for white working classes insulting, especially to the dead on both sides.
5 April 2006 4:51PM
And on the use of the word Semitic. It is a biblical term - 'the sons of Shem' - not a linguistic one.
5 April 2006 5:08PM
enoughsaid;
I agree with all of that, but read my post again. Scribe5 has said to be anti-zionist is anti-semitic (jewish). The two, to him, are indistinguishable. But the very fact he is a non-jew proves that 'zionism' and 'semitism' are not, in fact, the same. Do you see? It kind of defeats his own argument.
Of course I don't find it odd that a non-jew would support Israel, I support her as well. I have no particular axe to grind other than a personal distate for nationalism (whatever badge it wears), especially nonsensical nationalism.
5 April 2006 6:51PM
Belsizepark:
Read my posts again.
1.I used the OED and have posted the definition before. 2.Some quotes: 'State anti-Zionist apparatus was still turning out their libelous anti Jewish pamphlets' 'The Jews as a nation have only one State, Israel.' 3.If you don't think his views are extreme, then I wonder what views you think are? 4.Like I said I'm not attacking zionism, I'm attacking extremism. My remark about an explanation was addressed to you not myself. 5.I am no anti-zionist as I have already explained. 6.I didn't assume anything, precicely the opposite. Like I have said, I can understand jewish nationalism, zionism, anti-semitism if I can see where they are coming from. In Scribe5's case I can't. I've asked someone to explain that to me.
5 April 2006 6:57PM
"I hate to bring everyone back to the point, but how close do we think we're getting to defining where "the boundary between criticism of Israeli policy and anti-semitic demonisation lies"
Is that the point though? Isn't the article just more mud throwing and counter mud throwing.
Anti semitism is the point where you are denouncing someone just because they are Jewish (albeit that even a blunt definition could generate lots of debate).
If I denounce Israel because I am an anti semitic racist, does it negate the critiscism? and more to the point who would know my reasons for that critisism without the associated rhetoric to prove it?
It's clear anti semitism is anti semtitism and mud slinging is mud slinging. I actually sympathise with the authors point about anti semitism being behind a lot of the critisism but if you can't prove it then it just adds to the accusations and counter accusations.
5 April 2006 7:32PM
Altrui,
I do not see your point. Antisemitism is ati-Jewish hatred as simple as that- why donn't you look it the etymology of that - you will no doubt find something similar to Wikepdia that says
"German political agitator Wilhelm Marr coined the related German word Antisemitismus in his book "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" in 1879. Marr used the phrase to mean Jew-hatred or Judenhass, and he used the new word antisemitism to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. Marr's book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Anti-Semites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), "
Secondly you have not shown why Scribes ethnicity is relevant. You are just trying to backtrack
5 April 2006 7:32PM
I remember watching a documentary ages ago about a nutty and charismatic US-born Rabbi who lived in a settlement, sang songs called 'In love with the one above' on a radio station and was pretty extreme in his views. At one point he made the connection that as Israel was the Jewish state, criticism of it was the same as criticism of Judaism. He got really excited and shouted at the camera: "You hate Jews, nigger." I was fascinated by his reflexive use of the word nigger, which I guess he picked up in New York. Did it make him a racist? I don't know, although I expect some black people found it offensive.
Would it be anti-semitic to suggest stopping using the term anti-semitism altogether and instead gather together all the various -isms (racism/islamophobia etc etc) under an umbrella word like prejudice?
Perhaps I am garbling here. In short I think that there is a lot of sensitivity in Europe to anything that could be construed as anti-Jewish feeling - and a lot of sensitivity to that sensitivity. You can't have real debate where the legitimacy of what someone is saying depends on whether they are Jewish or not.
I don't agree with much of what David Hirsh writes overall but in his ability to get a comment board going he is the king.
But the obsession with the Israel/Palestinian conflict to me seems reasonably logical because a) it's really unfair, and b) if it were sorted out it would allow a hell of a lot of the world to start moving on. Like it or not, it is not just a distasteful local dispute.
5 April 2006 7:37PM
Johnie in practice singling out is treating Israel different to any other strae. As an example, why are people boycotting Israel but not boycotting any other country on earth? Why are people saying Israel has no right to exist but do not say that about any other country on earth?
They are practical examples of "singling out".
5 April 2006 7:42PM
BSP:
As I have said elsewhere: Wikipedia ain't evidence. For the English language, the OED is.
I think if you read my posts I have already stated why it is relevant, and you seem to use the same tactics as those you defend. Read my posts.
5 April 2006 8:35PM
Belsizepark Hang on if you believe passionately that Israel's occupation is wrong and on that basis you choose not to buy israeli products how does that make you anti-semitic, your action doesn't target all jewish people it targets the state of israel.
5 April 2006 8:45PM
As for the definition of anti-Semitism,
there is an etymologically based definition wich is linguistic in nature and based on a misunderstaning.
However, it has also spawned a political defintion which is the one that is relevant here:
http://www.facingachallenge.com/
"To explain our definition of anti-Semitism: We're making a distinction between the older, linguistically based term, "Semitic" and the particular term "anti-Semitism." The linguistic term, created by ruling class European Christians, referenced most people of the Middle East as speakers of Semitic languages. "Anti-Semitism" was popularized by Wilhelm Marr, when he founded the "Anti-Semitic League" in 1879 to target Jews, specifically. The league was the first effort at creating a popular political movement against Jews as a people, not as a religious group. This is an important distinction, because the term "anti-Semitism" is now being questioned by some progressives as not pertaining particularly to Jews. In clarifying our definition, we also want all conference publicity to be clear that we are concerned about anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice. The confusion and divisive nature of terms themselves can be thought of as part of the oppressive ideology created in Europe as it secularized from official Christianity. The term, "anti-Semitism" was created to de-humanize Jews, along with terms for other racial categorizations which de-humanized all people who were not wealthy, northern Europeans from Christian lineage (the "Aryans.") Our distinguished presenter, Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr., is one of the world's leading authorities examining the realities behind the concept of "race." His Keynote speech will illuminate the pseudo-scientific and political nature of racial categorization, when he speaks on "Anti-Semitism and Racism: Cut from the Same Cloth, to Achieve the Same Ends."
There will be a coference held on anti-Semitism in the left come and join us if you are in New Jersey:
"FACING A CHALLENGE WITHIN:
A Progressive Scholars' and Activists'
Conference on Anti-Semitism* & The Left, East Coast"
"The East Coast FACING A CHALLENGE WITHIN: A Progressive Scholars' and Activists' Conference on Anti-Semitism* & The Left will take place at the DoubleTree Hotel Newark Airport in Elizabeth NJ
Sat. March 25 - Mon. March 27, 2006.
Co-sponsored by Catalyst to Coalition, Berkeley CA and the National Coalition Building Institute, Washington, DC"
These are not exactly right wing organizations.
5 April 2006 8:50PM
"Would it be anti-semitic to suggest stopping using the term anti-semitism altogether and instead gather together all the various -isms (racism/islamophobia etc etc) under an umbrella word like prejudice?"
How about using the term Jew hatred, Dubai Tom.
You should be an expert on that subject by now, living as you do in Dubai.
5 April 2006 8:54PM
Thank you Scribe5 for validating our point. There are a great many examples of Jewish intellectuals (practicing ones too) who are passionately against the Israeli state and the Zionist movement. To just quote a few: Norman Finkelstein, Victor Klemperer...