Anti Semitism

Mad Finn

Get into a discussion about the Middle East and very quickly, if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

But what's an anti-semite?

There are several definitions. My favourite comes from an Irish-American former senator and US ambassador to the UN (where he was a strong supporter of Israel) Daniel Patrick Moynihan. An anti-semite, he opined was 'Someone who dislikes Jews more than is absolutely necessary'.

What's yours?

Tchocky

Haven't exactly got a favourite definition of anti-semitism......:)

"What's that? Religion doesnt matter, you say? Verily, this is a breath of fresh air..."

Hobbes

Mad Finn wrote:

if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

Disagreeing with Israel doesn't make you anti-Semite. You should point that out to them, if they continue with this then you should also point out that Muslims are also semites and having a pro-israel stance would make them anti-semite by thier logic.*

* Do in a kirk voice, if they are a robot they should blow up at this point.

Defination of Anti-Semite: I can no longer debate the issue in a rational way so I will just call you anti-XXXX and it automatically null and voids anything you might say. A variation of the lalalalalaICan'tHearYou fingers in the ears defense.

exiztone

Yeah, I don't get it. For all those mental right wing nuts who go on about Islam and the Middle East being the Devil, are they anti-semitic or what? Definitely worth throwing in their face if they are.

You'll know it when you see it.

You didn't need a definition of what is racist or sectarian or whatever to realise that cartoons about Mohammed may be offensive to Muslims. If someone is at the stage whether they are wondering whether a statement is or is not technically anti-semite, I'm guessing they have gone long past the line where it could be deemed offensive anyway and as such did not need to be said.

The Saint

I read a good article which I can't find now unfortunately about what is ant-semitism by an Israeli Jewish journalist. He essentially said that anti-semitism is hating Jews for what they are rather than what 'they' do. He basically stated that trying to use criticism of Israeli actions to accuse of anti-semitism has no basis. I think it's a pretty good definition.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote:

You'll know it when you see it.

You didn't need a definition of what is racist or sectarian or whatever to realise that cartoons about Mohammed may be offensive to Muslims. If someone is at the stage whether they are wondering whether a statement is or is not technically anti-semite, I'm guessing they have gone long past the line where it could be deemed offensive anyway and as such did not need to be said.

Not necessarily, read Hobbes post to see how labelling someone anti semitic is merely a tool used to censor arguments, and denigrate the poster, much the same as labelling someone a nazi is. So if someone modifies their statement(s) as a result they are engaging in self censorship rather than necessarily causing offence.

Ray777

I've found that the sheer number of supporters of Israel who trot out the 'anti-semite' line is indicative of the thinness of pro-Israeli arguments.

On the other hand, I find that the number of people who give out that they are censored by the anti-semite accusation far exceeds the number of times I actually see an accusation of anti-semitism.

Morlar

I remember reading a definition that went something like this


"An anti-semite used to be someone who didnt like the jews -
thesedays an anti-semite is someone the jews dont like"

My own version would be that an anti semite is someone who hates jewish people for being jewish.

Israel doesnt come into anti semitism - its a completely seperate thing - the army and state of israel is not the representative of 'jewishness'/judaica whatever you want to call it. Its more zionism than jewishness. There are plenty of jewish people who are critical of the actions of the IDF/Sharon/Olmert. Some of the most articulate, knowldegeable and prominent critics of israel & the IDF are jewish.

Diorraing

Norman Finkelstein has written a book on the subject: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". Well worth a read. Basically a criticism of Alan Dershowitz who wrote "Chutzpah". He (Dersh) also wrote The Case for Israel which is an extremely interesting work and one worth reading to fully understand the middle-east

Húrin

Mad Finn wrote:

Get into a discussion about the Middle East and very quickly, if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

Critics of Israel aren't anti-Semites (except for a few Nazis) but more often those who take the anti-Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran line are accused of desiring a holocaust of Muslims. :rolleyes:

Mad Finn

Deleted User wrote:

On the other hand, I find that the number of people who give out that they are censored by the anti-semite accusation far exceeds the number of times I actually see an accusation of anti-semitism.

That's a fair point, but it does happen.

Is there any record anywhere on the web of the famous spat between Dershovitz and Fisk on the Dunphy radio show the day after 9/11? I'm pretty sure Dershovitz called Fisk an anti-Semite on that one, for no other reason than Fisk pointing out incidents of Zionist terrorism like the bombing of the King David hotel.

Mad Finn

Mad Finn wrote:

Is there any record anywhere on the web of the famous spat between Dershovitz and Fisk on the Dunphy radio show the day after 9/11? I'm pretty sure Dershovitz called Fisk an anti-Semite on that one, for no other reason than Fisk pointing out incidents of Zionist terrorism like the bombing of the King David hotel.

That's terrible. After the whole '3,000 civilians killed' thing it must have been the second worst thing to happen that month...

If Fisk had spent the day after 9/11 recalling instances of Jewish attacks then he is not anti-semite, merely a completely and utterly inconsiderate ******.

The Saint

H&#250 wrote: »

Critics of Israel aren't anti-Semites (except for a few Nazis) but more often those who take the anti-Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran line are accused of desiring a holocaust of Muslims. :rolleyes:

I haven't heard that one before. Any examples?

I thought much Alan Dershowitz's Chutzpa was found to be a piss poor plagerism of Joan Peters book which as completely discredited by Finklestein.

Trode

Deleted User wrote:

On the other hand, I find that the number of people who give out that they are censored by the anti-semite accusation far exceeds the number of times I actually see an accusation of anti-semitism.

I completely agree with this, and add that I've seen a fair few people make the leap from (legitimately) criticising Israel to claiming you can't criticise Israel without being called an anti-semite(even when no such accusations were made) to actual anti-semitism. The amount of people in the last few weeks trotting out stuff like 'Jews control the world media','Jews are secretly running the US government', 'Jews want to rule the world', 'The world would have been better off if Hitler had won' etc, is frankly depressing.

The Saint

I think it is true that some people cloak their anti-semitism as criticism of Israel. They see Israel as being a centre of the Jewish identity and therefore focus their hatred towards the state instead of individual people to avoid being fingered as an anti-semite. This however should not take away from any legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. Most critics are genuine, legitimate critics of the policies of the state of Israel.

I haven't seen the anti-semite card pulled out in much if any threads here thankfully but it is often the case especially in regards to America. Organisations like the ADF and AIPAIC pull this out too easily which I think is a shame. It detracts from any legitimate arguement that they have and devalues legitmate arguements against anti-semitism. It should only be used if there is truly anti-semitism.

Mad Finn

Deleted User wrote:

That's terrible. After the whole '3,000 civilians killed' thing it must have been the second worst thing to happen that month...

If Fisk had spent the day after 9/11 recalling instances of Jewish attacks then he is not anti-semite, merely a completely and utterly inconsiderate ******.

Well you need to listen to the context of the discussion (if such it could be called). Fisk was doing his thing of asking why the 9/11 attacks may have happened, a tack which usually enrages the pro-war right, and pointing out that terrorism is not unique to one side.

Nowhere did he try to justify 9/11.

And BTW the King David bombing happened in the 1940s.

Mad Finn

Mad Finn wrote:

And BTW the King David bombing happened in the 1940s.

Seems strange to drag it up on a day that really called for respect and mourning rather than a 'well Israel did this and did that'. Don't think Fisk is an anti-semite (to bring it back to the thread) but he clearly hates Israel.

Sleepy

I think largely the anti-semite card gets pulled out of an ignorance of the history of Israel and a lack of knowlege of the issues in the region tbh. The amount of people I know who can't tell the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semetism is staggering!

Frederico

Its a phrase just like "anti-american"..

Morlar

Frederico wrote:

Its a phrase just like "anti-american"..

I think anti-semite would be against someone on the basis of their religon, like anti-christian, anti-catholic, not anti-nationality, anti-country.

InFront

H&#250 wrote: »

those who take the anti-Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran line are accused of desiring a holocaust of Muslims. :rolleyes:

since when??
Thats a new one...

Frederico

Morlar wrote:

I think anti-semite would be against someone on the basis of their religon, like anti-christian, anti-catholic, not anti-nationality, anti-country.

Oh I just believe they are being used in the same way..

Phrases that are often used to back arguments for a rightwing agenda, e.g. war.

The Saint

Interesting info here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

It is a very imperfect term for a form of racism.

Húrin

The Saint wrote:

I haven't heard that one before. Any examples?

Check out this international politics forum. They talk about little else other than terrorism, and anyone who criticises Islamic fundamentalism or theocratic regimes is immediately accused by half of the left wing of desiring to kill Muslims, of racism, or of desiring a US invasion of the Middle East.

The Saint

H&#250 wrote: »

Check out this international politics forum. They talk about little else other than terrorism, and anyone who criticises Islamic fundamentalism or theocratic regimes is immediately accused by half of the left wing of desiring to kill Muslims, of racism, or of desiring a US invasion of the Middle East.

Linky no worky. Anyone who trys to stifle legitimate debate by shouting "racist" at any criticism of their side is as bad as the other side that does the same thing. I've no doubt it happens unfortunately. I don't know how anyone can defend Islamic terrorism and dictatorial regimes whoever they're supported by or whoever they are opposed by. I do think it is legitimate however to give context to why such fundamentalism has support and why such horrible regimes are in place.

Bateman

Sleepy wrote:

I think largely the anti-semite card gets pulled out of an ignorance of the history of Israel and a lack of knowlege of the issues in the region tbh. The amount of people I know who can't tell the difference between anti-zionism and anti-semetism is staggering!

Agreed; if someone was truly anti-semitic, it would be extremely difficult to hold down a conversation with them for any length of time, and telling them they're anti-semitic would be fairly pointless. The label is more often than not used as a justification for pro-Israel arguments, and the opposite is also true; anti-Israel arguments are usually partially justified by saying "sure you can't say anything against Israel now without being accused of being enti-semitic".

history_buff

Mad Finn wrote:

Get into a discussion about the Middle East and very quickly, if you start taking an anti-Israeli line, you will be accused of being anti-semitic to some degree.

But what's an anti-semite?

Actually, the usage of the term "anti-Semite" by issue-dodging Jews is a display of Jewish racism and bigotry. Bear in mind that Arabs are Semites, so if you follow Jewish logic, the state of Israel's policy against Palestinians for the past 60 years constitutes "anti-Semitic genocide".

MiddleE

Diorraing wrote:

Norman Finkelstein has written a book on the subject: "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". Well worth a read. Basically a criticism of Alan Dershowitz who wrote "Chutzpah". He (Dersh) also wrote The Case for Israel which is an extremely interesting work and one worth reading to fully understand the middle-east

Yes. Have you read "A Rock and a Hard Place: Origins of Arab-Western Conflict in the Middle East" by Gerald Butt. Half of it is excellent on the history of all the Arab countries.


'Le Monde' acquitted of 'racially' defaming Israel
The I R I S H T I M E S
Lara Marlowe in Paris ...Thursday, July 13, 2006

FRANCE: Citing the right to freedom of expression and the European Convention on Human Rights, the French Cour de Cassation or Supreme Court yesterday struck down an earlier appeals court judgment which convicted Le Monde newspaper and three prominent intellectuals of "defamation on racial grounds" for a 2002 article criticising Israel.

Sami Naïr, a professor of political science and former member of the European Parliament, said he and co-authors Edgar Morin and Danielle Sallenave would celebrate their definitive legal victory last night.

Morin, Naïr and Sallenave quoted Victor Hugo:

"The oppressed of yesterday are tomorrow's oppressors."

Then prime minister Ariel Sharon compromised Israel's chances of survival "by believing he can ensure Israeli security through terror," they wrote. The Holocaust was used to justify colonisation, apartheid and confining Palestinians to ghettos.

Though the text clearly referred to the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, the subsequent reduction of the phrase from "the Jews of Israel" to simply "the Jews" was seized upon as evidence of defamation in the lawsuit.

"Judges must analyse the incriminated text in its context," the Supreme Court verdict said. By isolating two paragraphs from a much longer article expressing the authors' opinions on a highly polemical subject, the Versailles court had violated article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as French law.

"The text in reality targeted the policy of the government of Israel against Palestinians, and not individuals or groups of individuals because of their national or ethnic origin, their race or religion . . ." the Supreme Court concluded.

Although this was published on 13th July 2006 by the Irish Times, I cannot find any other newspaper that carried the article. Every few days I do a search. Nothing. Not a mention. You can gauge how big a story it is by all the postings that there was in 2005 about the original case. You will learn that

in the first ruling of its kind in Europe, in May 2005 a French court found Le Monde guilty of anti-Semitism and slander against "Jews as a whole," for an article that was disguised as merely an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

J'accuse ...Anti-Semitism at Le Monde and beyond
By Tom Gross ...June 2, 2005

A French court last week found three writers for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper's publisher, guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. In a groundbreaking decision, the Versailles court of appeal ruled that a comment piece published in Le Monde in 2002, "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer," had whipped up anti-Semitic opinion.

Now the latter is all redundant. So much hot air, but only if the Supreme Court ruling is publicised. So far the win seems as good as a loss. The origional article...

Israel-Palestine: The Cancer
By Edgar Morin, Sami Naïr and Danièle Sallenave ...Le Monde, 2002/06/03)

At the beginning of Zionism, the phrase "a landless people for a land without people" hid the prior Palestinian population. The Jews' right to a nation hid the Palestinians' right to their nation.

It is horrible to kill civilians according to a principle of collective guilt, as suicide attacks do, but this is a principle applied by Israel, from the time of Sabra and Shatila and of south Lebanon, until today

One is hard pressed to imagine that a nation of fugitives, descended of the people persecuted longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, should be able to transform itself in two generations into a "dominating and self-assured people" and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.

rlogue

My own view is that criticism of the actions of the Israeli government and their defence forces is fair enough - however there are plenty who take it a step further and deny Israel the right to exist. Others think it's a state on wheels and think it can move lock stock and barrel to somewhere in the US mid west.

If Ireland has to be moved, can we shift it to somewhere between Greece and Italy in a nice warm spot on the Med? Can we shift the US and Canada around? It would be nice.