Is this anti-semitism?

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

Again: all bigotry is a manifestation of the bigot's insecurity, usually unsubstantiated.

How has Christianity dealt with the Jesus as king of Jews thing?

Perhaps the main point of this thread was that I hate ambiguously worded questionnaires, esp. if they're deliberately so.

If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.

Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".

(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

That's all I'm saying.

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.

That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Lots of murderers believe killing is wrong, too.

I think calling these ethical viewpoints "opinions" trivializes the amount of importance we place on them. "Opinion" also implies some sort of choice in the matter, whereas we often perceive the truth of ethical standpoints so deeply that we cannot imagine thinking they are wrong, or relative, or whatever.

1) 50 years is not such a long time, after all, is it
2) It wasn't the first time
3) Of course Europe doesn't understand Jews - they killed 'em all

and here's the official chain of events for the start of this
conflict:

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

I reckon a lot of murderers think killing is wrong, but they do it anyway.

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3

Mmmm! If only all those Palestinians who were displaced/denied the right to a homeland by step 2 could see things so lucidly, eh?

(I'm saying nothing about the validity of the points, but just using maths style logic)

er, isn't that Step 0: Jews promise themselves this land??

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

Relativism has it that all beliefs are, well, relative. Against this is the idea that beliefs are either right or wrong, warranted or unwarranted, universalisable or merely partisan, and so on and so forth. I was suggesting that the 'belief' that murder is wrong is not a belief in the relativist sense of the word. On my side is the argument that killing must be wrong for everyone (not just those who believe killing is wrong - the relativist's error) or else you are left with the (relativist) situation that killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.

That's a bit clearer. Ta.

I think that killing is 'wrong'. Another person may disagree and think killing is 'not-wrong'. We would both be correct.

I think I'm right, but so does the other person. Whose to say which of us is correct? And who is to say that the person who decides which of us is correct is correct. And so on.

As for the hypothetical person who disagrees, thinking that killing is right, we need to ask them to defend their position. It's not enought just to speculate that someone might disagree with us in order for us to 'relativise' our beliefs (although this is exactly what relativists do all the time.) In the absence of an argument - good reasons - in favour of killing, I think we can safely say that killing is wrong.

I couldn't honestly argue that killing is wrong or that killing is right.

I don't think the person who believes killing is right need defend their position. It's just a belief, no more or less valid than my belief that killing is wrong.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 28th, 2004.

This is where it's most clear that I'm NOT getting my point across:
YOU CANNOT ARGUE OR REASON TOWARDS A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING IS 'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG'.

There is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong', the division is arbitrary.

I'm interested in this. I've never heard the term 'relativise' before. Do you think that's what I'm trying to do? Can you explain that a bit please.

As far as I know, there was no systemic displacement of
Arab-speaking natives before the war.
Here's my understanding of the refugee situation:
When Jordan, Syria and Egypt attack Israel (for no reason beside
hatred) a large number of Muslims rose up and joined the war
against their Jewish neighbors. After the invaders were defeated,
the insurgents fled Israel with their families to avoid
retribution, and convincing every Muslim they could to leave
with them, by spreading tales of impending slaughter by Israeli
troops. Again, I do not know of any systemic persecutions or
displacements of Arab-speakers.

It's worth noting that most of the "refugees" alive now were
born in the refugee camps - strange situation, no? I don't
know of any other situation where the child of refugees are
also considered.

The "refugees" are in a stasis now because they are not wanted
by Israel OR the Arab nations. Israel's enemy
neighbors will have nothing to do with the "refugees" - they would prefer to leave that thorn in Israel's
side.

The anti-semites who admit to it are impotent and
ineffective. The smart ones are more dangerous;
they keep their true agenda hidden.

Why did the peace end in the 40s? Were the Israelis
the ones committed to violence?

Also, I believe that the Arab governments were sympathetic
or perhaps even allied with Nazi Germany. Did they truly
have the moral high ground in 1967?

google these: "stern gang" and "folke bernadotte"

I mean, what are the other possible solutions? The status quo is unacceptable to everyone; Israel doesn't want to absorb the entire Palestinian territory and population as Israeli citizens; nobody else really wants to annex the territory and take responsibility for a poverty-stricken population. Moreover, the Israelis and Palestinians need each other economically, so they have plenty of incentive to cut the shit out. But clearly it's going to take new leaders to put it into effect. And as long as everyone lets the suicide bombers dictate the pace of change (i.e. all it takes to derail everything for three more months is one asshole blowing up a bus), then it's going to come very slowly.

Meanwhile, 10 more people who were alive when this thread started are now dead.

Water, when heated, tends to boil. This is true. It is true not only because it happens a lot, but because it happens as a result of the properties of water and how those properties are affected by heat. Relativism doesn't apply. It is, let us say for shorthand, objective.

Ethical statements - as far as relativists are concerned - don't work in this way. This is because relativists are aware that different cultures and different individuals have different values. The relativist concludes that all ethical (etc) values are subjective, arbitrary, relative. (This isn't always the argument used by relativists but it is historically significant - relativism emerged during the colonial encounter with 'other' cultures).

One persistent problem has plagued relativism, though. How can the relativist's argument (that these values are arbitrary) be any better (on the relativist's own terms) than the non-relativist's argument? Relativism is internally coherent for this reason. How can you be a confirmed relativist? (And Mei, you are certainly both relativist and confirmed in your relativism).

What is a belief if it has no argument behind it or can't be argued for? I think, if pressed, you would certainly come up with good reasons to be a relativist. If that's true then even a relativist can understand that other people (non-relativists) will - and have a right to! - offer their good reasons too! And if that's true, then we are not simply in the position of exchanging unfounded beliefs that can't be resolved because there is no difference between right and wrong; we are in the position of discussing the rights and wrongs of each other's arguments.

I understand how people can get into this kind of mindset, but I have now reached the point in my life where it just makes me go 'AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH'.

This sounds like a fantasy that 'they' keep things hidden. NB the fantasy also acts as justification for attacking 'them' despite the fact that 'they' seem to be innocent.

Go figure!

Spittle, because you KNOW the solution, you're (probably) part of the problem.

One persistent problem has plagued relativism, though. How can the relativist's argument (that these values are arbitrary) be any better (on the relativist's own terms) than the non-relativist's argument? Relativism is internally coherent for this reason.

Yes, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't mind others disagreeing with me. Both myself and them can be right.

Yes. I think one of the problems is that both sides are convinced that they're right _and_ the other side are wrong.

For every spittle there's someone as sure as him, but sure he's (or she's) wrong.

-- mei (meirion.lewi...), January 29th, 2004.

Sorry, to clarify this, I'm not talking about any particular issue, rather, I don't have a problem thinking that this whole 'relativist' position (which I apparantly hold) is wrong.

What is a belief if it has no argument behind it or can't be argued for?

That's what a lot of people would call a belief. Some mentalists would argue that the more implausible and less evidenced a belief the better it is. Most of these mentalists would be religious.

I think, if pressed, you would certainly come up with good reasons to be a relativist. If that's true then even a relativist can understand that other people (non-relativists) will - and have a right to! - offer their good reasons too!

I'm not arguing against reasoning and I think some positions (in all matters) have more to commend them than others. But they're just reasons, suggestions, hints, supporting evidence...

It's not possible to _prove_ which side of an ethical argument is correct. In fact, this is partly why I say two opposing view points can be right at the same time - because neither can be proved right or proved wrong.

And if that's true, then we are not simply in the position of exchanging unfounded beliefs that can't be resolved because there is no difference between right and wrong; we are in the position of discussing the rights and wrongs of each other's arguments.
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 29th, 2004.

This depends on the belief in question.
There are unfounded beliefs that just happen to be correct.

Discussing the rights and wrongs might change peoples minds, but often it can' prove the validity of beliefs.

I do kind of think that there is no fundamental difference between right and wrong. Can you formulate a definition of what 'right' is?

"This is a tremendous, tremendous setback. I hope this will not be accepted by Christians in this country. It is this lie, the lie that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus, which planted the seeds of the Holocaust, Rabbi Avi Weiss, president of Amcha, said. (http://www.nbc17.com/entertainment/2874405/detail.html)

I mean yeah, you can say that 'Jews killed Jesus' is completely missing the point of the gospel, fine, but to say that it's a 'lie' that Jews were responsible for his death is just wrong, unless you're challenging the historicity of the gospels' accounts of the crucifixion, which I don't think he's doing. Why use that word 'lie', when it just plays into your opponents' hands?

On the radio, I heard someone from the Anti-Defamation League making the much more reasonable point, that all the bad Jews in the film looked stereotypically Jewish, whilst the good ones (ie. Jesus and his disciples) didn't. Assuming that's true, then that's completely fair criticism.

It's not completely, thoroughly false that Jews were involved in the execution of Jesus; it's completely misleading to say "Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus" if you're singling them out to do so.

(In other words for "Romans" we should substitute "state" and for "Jews" we should substitute, like, "public.")

I was trying to think of a comparison like that. I can't come up with one that works perfectly, mostly because there's a sort of ... range of possibility ... of the Sanhedrin's actual power.

(I'm not denying, by the way, that the Sanhedrin would have supported Jesus's execution, since J-dog going Jericho on the Temple is one of the bits we can be pretty sure actually happened. But likewise, this was a time when many, many Jews, both in and outside of Jerusalem, disagreed with the Sanhedrin. And you have to read the Gospels bearing in mind that they were written during and immediately after a time when Christians were being excluded from Jewish communities and services.)

some do maintain that very position ... but that's another topic.

if memory serves me right, most the really objectionable stuff (from a jewish perspective) re the crucifixion and the jews' alleged liability therefor is from the Book of Matthew. that's where the "his blood is on our heads" line comes from i think (tep?) but it was, of course, pilate who sentenced him and the romans who tortured than executed him. based on the reviews of the film that i've read, the romans don't get off the hook for the torture and actual crucifixion -- but pilate's role is whitewashed.

Yep. I can probably find it, just cause.

"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"

All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

Matthew 27:23-25

but see THEY WANTED HIM TO DIE SO EVERYONE COULD BE SAVED...weren't the romans or the jews or the hitites or gozer the gozarian or WHOEVER doing them all a favor anyway?!

It's like Pharaoh in the Exodus story -- God hardens some hearts and gets the bad guys to ... well, to be bad guys ... but it doesn't stop them from being bad guys, or excuse them from the repercussions. I'm not crazy with any of the theological explanations for this, and I'm not a theologian anyway.

i've also read that the alleged ceremony where the jews selected who was to be execution and who was to be spared was a fiction created by matthew -- that there was no such ceremony among the jewish people then or ever. i have no idea whether or not this is true.

I think it's one of those things we can't be positive is crap, because there's not enough information, but there's no compelling reason to think it's true, and the choice they're given, if they want to spare Jesus, is Jesus Barabbas -- "Jesus, the son of the father." They're being asked, who do you want to kill, Jesus the Messiah, or Jesus the son of the father?

I knew someone would say this. If the Rabbi had said 'it's a lie that the Jews killed Jesus' then that would be at least be technically correct, but what he said was about responsibility, and the Bible does make it fairly clear that his cruxificion was the Jewish people's choice. Of course 'washing your hands' isn't a morally great position, but that doesn't make any difference to what the Pharisees and the mob's own responsibility. If Matthew made all that up then fine, attack that, not the film.

As I said, the film may well be anti-semitic in its emphases and subtexts, but I just thought this was a particularly dumb way of phrasing an attack.

Though irrelevant, of course, since the film doesn't make this claim.

But the movie isn't a strictly Gospels-and-nothing-but portrayal -- and even the parts that do rely on a Gospel still often must decide which (with Gibson favoring Matthew and John, from what I've seen).

I think it includes a lot of things that can elicit a smug nod from people who hate the Jews already, but that doesn't mean it's nodding along with them; I do think the "let the blood be on our hands" line was a stupid one to include, but it's been removed from the subtitles (although it's still there, for those few Aramaic speakers in the audience who can make out the poor pronunciation.) A number of the changes Gibson has made to the Gospel material seem at first to make the Jews come across worse than they need to, but I think they make the Romans come across worse than they need to, too, so if Gibson's message is that everyone's a fuckbastard except me and my Messiah, I'm not sure I'm willing to charge him with subsets of calling-people-fuckbastards.

well, all it really says is that the pro-Roman high priests were all for it, and that there was a mob shouting "give us Barabbas!" and "crucify Jesus". It's a bit of a leap from that to say that all Jewish people wanted Jesus crucified. It doesn't even follow that all or most Jewish people in Jerusalem wanted him killed.

This is totally reminding me of the scene where the multitude are gathered outside Brian's bedroom window in Life of Brian and all answering (at length) in unison Brian's mother's questions.

(I'm talking in general again here, not about the movie I haven't seen.)

I think the Rabbi is oversimplifying, but I do think there's a lot to credit in the idea that blaming Jews -- the Jews, some Jews, any Jews, if the statement of blame makes a point of their Jewishness -- for Jesus's death, while forgiving the Romans, is tied in with the anti-Semitism that was a necessary prerequisite for the Holocaust.

[*] For instance, if the "let his blood be on our hands" line had some greater pertinence, and removing it would remove some of the good along with the bad -- which I don't think is the case -- then there'd be the question of what to do with it, whether a rephrasing could retain the good while still removing the bad, etc.

But nevertheless, some idiot notions were popularized more than others.

It's something I can't condemn yet sight-unseen, because when I wrote my own Jesus novel, it was something I kept having trouble with -- I'd like to think I'm not the least bit anti-Semitic, but when your protagonist opposes the status quo, and the status quo is Jewish, and his followers are more ardent about the opposition than he is, you do find some sentences need to be rewritten to avoid things that could be taken very wrongly.

(I can't help but suspect Gibson was less concerned about that than I was, but I don't know if that's fair.)

i'm not criticizing you tep

it's one thing to say 'oh i think this part of the gospels is more humane and more useful' but that doesn't mean the other parts are any less *there*--i dunno, there's this awful residual part of me that says that the acceptance of the authority--moral or otherwise--of the gospels is the central problem, and the problems of interpretation and selective application are just auxilliary problems

but you're right that's another topic

(x-post)

so i'll be happy to oblige

I'm not a Jew but I certainly take offense at this statement. What do you mean by 'ruining'? Does it ruin the state more than Christianity ruins other states, like Northern Ireland, for instance?

a) Israel is to blame.
b) No wait, the Jews are to blame.
c) Also, I forgot about those Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

Chow985 (5 days ago) Show Hide
+3 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
enjoy while you can, the jews of nbc are coming

Swaneaterman (5 days ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
i hope you meant jaws

SUP3RSOFA (4 days ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
pretty sure he meant to say jews

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/feb/18/caryl-churchill-gaza-play

w the f is with the tone of this? if the accusation was of straight-up racism... oh you get the idea.

"don't tell them about the dead babies"??

subtle stuff.

w the f is with the tone of this?

Lol Melanie Phillips, I believe.

Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her their names why not, tell her the whole world knows, why shouldn’t she know? tell her there’s dead babies, did she see babies? Tell her she’s got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I’m not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we’re the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can’t talk suffering to us. Tell her we’re the iron fist now, tell her it’s the fog of war, tell her we won’t stop killing them till we’re safe, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policeman, tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don’t care if the world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.

ay-ay-ay

xpost

would have held water before the guardian started publishing stuff by the likes of neil clark, richard seymour, tony naylor, etc.*

*joke that possibly not even dom will get

I know nothing about the content of the play but perhaps the accusation would be taken more seriously if it weren't coming from someone who talks about the "creeping Islamisation of Britain" on the same Spectator blog.

(xpost yeah okay that's pretty dodgy)

I dunno, I guess that excerpt strikes me as a totally unsurprising level of venom in the the context of suicide bombers, attacks etc, and the everyday vilainization of the other side. Isn't hatred basically universal?

I kind of feel like...I don't think attributing that voice to a Jewish is person is anti-Semitic, I think it would be foolhardy denial to pretend any group of people wouldn't have some notes of that kind of hatred in them under similar circumstances.

This article on it in The Independent is getting a bit of attention today. I've got to say that I'm (genuinely) a bit shocked by the readers' comments section

tl;dr

independent published a cartoon with ariel sharon actually eating babies though so they've kind of set out their stall as the paper for left-wing anti-semites.

not sure why it's thought to be a good idea to stage the caryl churchill with a play about germans refusing to accept responsibility for the holocaust, or why charlotte higgins think this context helps when "jews are the new nazis" is more or less the no. 1 meme among jew-haters.

Surely what Jacobson is saying is flat-out wrong, though. Critics of Israel (anti-Semitic or not) have nothing like the monopoly on political discourse that he claims, and isn't that his central claim? This isn't to deny that some criticism of Israel might be anti-Semitic.

how-j's perspective on the world is pretty much limited to the tonier parts of media london; within that, he's not wrong.

The view from Hampstead, you mean?

comments section on that article is a fucking shocker

I'm genuinely unclear about what's so shocking in that comment section! There's no point of view expressed there that I'm surprised to see.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A5FW0Zqf2LA/SMm_Ep8GXRI/AAAAAAAAA7g/OfpwL7X55Xk/s320/blahzay_blahzay_blah_blah_blah_1996_retail_cd-front.jpg

?

you're cool with the first comment being: "this guy has a jewish name, don't listen to him"?

Nice job on equating "I'm not shocked" to "I'm cool with", there.

if you don't find it shocking you should probably spend more time among people who aren't complete fucking goons.

"No, A pro Isreali Anti Palestinian Shoddy Second Rate Piece of 6th Grade Reporting is the name of my dog!"

enrique i cant really believe that youre shocked, given how often you talk about the anti-semitism prevalent in the british left

you should probably spend more time among people who aren't complete fucking goons.

What, ILX?

xpost shocking = offensive or distasteful, not neccessarily surprised

dude still insists on reading the guardian too, what can you do

Yes, because "I'm not shocked by opinions expressed in a newspaper comments thread on the fucking Internet, you know the place where we have Youtube comments thread and the like" translates to "I hang out with anti-Semites". Again, well done.

(xposts)

Do I just not really understand the background here? Because I see a lot of comments like this one, which seems extremely reasonable to me:

Are we allowed to criticise Israeli actions at all? I criticised British and American actions during the Iraq war. Am I unpatriotic? If criticism of Israel descends into anti-semitism then it must be checked and noted I agree but those who abhor violence must be allowed a voice.

That seems like kind of an obvious comment that doesn't address the issue.

By the way, I DON'T think it's anti-semitic to have Israeli parents say "Don't tell them about the baby-killing" or whatever. I think it's easy and cheap and not very subtle or interesting, but it's not anti-semitic to bring up the fact that Israeli actions resulted in the deaths of babies just because there happen to have been some blood libels in the middle ages involving jews and babies.

There are certainly people -- I wouldn't say there are many, but they exist, and I've known a few -- who argue that no Western criticism of Israel is legitimate, because (a) whatever Israel's transgressions or mistakes, there are many countries and regimes deserving of opprobrium (and so if you're singling out Israel the only conceivable reason is anti-Semitism), and (b) the Holocaust, or at least the fact that the West permitted the Holocaust to happen.

(xpost)

(That being said, it's a fairly extreme point of view.)

Shimon Peres bottle opener

Caryl Churchill relying on easy and cheap polemics??? Hold the fucking presses this is breaking news

However I do think parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany is ... something. Maybe not anti-semitic, but problematic, because it seems to imply a canceling out of past wrongs.

i think this has 0 to do with anti-semitism and 100% to do with Caryl Churchill's time being over some time about 30 years ago

I mean I don't have as much of a problem with people saying "apartheid" or even "ethnic cleansing" as long as they can back it up/justify it, but using Nazi Germany as the analogy seems to have an especially questionable motive.

There are certainly people -- I wouldn't say there are many, but they exist, and I've known a few -- who argue that no Western criticism of Israel is legitimate, because (a) whatever Israel's transgressions or mistakes, there are many countries and regimes deserving of opprobrium (and so if you're singling out Israel the only conceivable reason is anti-Semitism), and (b) the Holocaust, or at least the fact that the West permitted the Holocaust to happen.

(xpost)

― Charlie Rose Nylund, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 17:45 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

strawmensch

stating the obv here, but yeah the whole Nazi comparison thing is done to get a rise out of Jewish people rather than to make any real political statement.

strawmensch

Hey, I was answering Laurel's question. I'll look up the people I've known who've expressed the opinion I described, though, and tell them about a great casting opportunity for them in The Wizard Of Oz.

It's ALL kind of obvious, the playwright's point is, as you say, obviously and not very complex or interesting, but in that case...why are people upthread calling the comments shocking and terrible?

well the majority of them are surely terrible, just not shocking as in a surprise

Okay, well, I don't see why they're so terrible either. But I guess that means I don't understand the issues.

xxxposts fine, you've met people who've said this, whatever. but it's a travesty of mainstream arguments about criticism of israel, not the real thing. saying that israel is "singled out" doesn't mean that you can't criticise it - just that it shouldn't be targeted with extraordinary measures not applied to other human rights abusers eg boycott movements.

and it is not often said that complicity in the holocaust means that there should be no western criticism of israel, but that it feeds into israeli fears about neighbours and political organisations in palestine who have the stated aim of the destruction of the jewish state.

Didn't most of ILX pretty much reach this viewpoint after a day or so of argument about the Gaza invasion?

Talking about the crimes of Hamas is a smoke and mirror comment as the Palestinians are an occupied and embattled people. The original sin is being committed against them. We will address their crimes once Israel has cleaned up its act.

I see a continuum between lunacies at either end of the spectrum, admittedly with far more at the anti-Israel end. But we still have charming lines like "If Israel messes up the hair on an arab's head a million people scream and riot in the streets", the guy who says there's no such thing as a Palestinian, and the guy who basically asked why they all can't just go to Egypt.

xpost it's a travesty of mainstream arguments about criticism of israel, not the real thing

I more or less agree with the rest of your post, but this is awfully reductive. "The real thing"?

I mean, one elephant in the room with all these discussions -- or at least one clear demarcator -- is whether questioning Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state = anti-Semitism. There are a lot of people who would say an emphatic "yes" to that, a lot of people who would do the opposite, and a lot of people who aren't sure.

(This is a totally separate/different issue than asking whether it's pragmatic, reasonable, or appropriate to open up that question. I think Nabisco or Hurting summed that one up nicely, some time ago.)

questioning's Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state may not be anti-semitism, but it's stupid and pointless because Israel's realistically not gonna stop being a Jewish state. Israelis would have their country go down in flames before that happened.

it's a solution to the middle east crisis about as much as "what if everyone there became atheists?" is a solution.

so, like the nazi thing, its only use in political discussion is to get jews angry and paranoid. it might not be philosophically anti-semitic, but it has a similar end result.

Didn't most of ILX pretty much reach this viewpoint after a day or so of argument about the Gaza invasion?

Talking about the crimes of Hamas is a smoke and mirror comment as the Palestinians are an occupied and embattled people. The original sin is being committed against them. We will address their crimes once Israel has cleaned up its act.

― How can there be male ladybugs? (Laurel), Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:12 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no because thats a retarded viewpoint

iatee, what do you think of the argument in this article?

(And by "what do you think" I mean "do you think it accurately reflects the perspectives of the parties involved", rather than "do you endorse it".)

^ article makes a very good point. question being put to palestinians/hamas is in some ways comparable to a (hypothetical) c. 1900's demand for native americans to issue a blanket statement honoring the US's "right to exist"

There is an enormous difference between "recognizing Israel's existence" and "recognizing Israel's right to exist." From a Palestinian perspective, the difference is in the same league as the difference between asking a Jew to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened and asking him to concede that the Holocaust was morally justified. For Palestinians to acknowledge the occurrence of the Nakba – the expulsion of the great majority of Palestinians from their homeland between 1947 and 1949 – is one thing. For them to publicly concede that it was "right" for the Nakba to have happened would be something else entirely.

Slight of hand with two very different uses of the word 'right' here. And then on top of that, there's the translation issue. What does 'recognizing Israel's right to exist' imply in the Arabic language vs. what he's reading into it in English? Overall, I'm not buying that sorta philosophical depth from an organization that quotes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their charter.

so iatee are you refusing to recognize palestinians' right to refuse to recognize israel's right to exist?

I think I have the right to

which by his logic, makes it 'right'

Israel has a right to exist --> Israel did not exist prior to the Nakba --> the Nakba was morally justified, or, in other words, "right"

but apparently this is "sleight of hand" which only works because it uses the word "right" twice

Israel has a right to exist = Israel is a state that exists right (argh) now and will continue to have the right to do so

if we buy his logic, doesn't that make Palestinian moderates who *are* willing to say 'Israel has a right to exist' a horribly self-hating group?

or do Palestinian moderates merely lack the philsophical subtlety of Hamas

well I think our debate basically just proves the author's point, which is that "right to exist" rhetoric is, at best, confusing and vague; and, at worst, a bunch of disingenuous bullshit.

like, if I find a homeless dude squatting in my house, and I shoot and kill him, are you going to charge me with crimes against humanity and say that I don't acknowledge his "right to exist"? because then I would probably just say "man I got no problem with that dude but I don't acknowledge his right to exist in my house", and then we could have a huge unproductive semantic debate and completely lose sight of the real issue, which is that I probably committed a crime, but am not a subhuman monster.

I dunno how much I like that analogy

I don't have time to chase a link right now, but wasn't there a recent poll of Israelis and Palestinians which showed dramatic changes in response when things like "an apology from Israel for the Nakba" (for Palestinians) or "acknowledging Israel's right to exist" (for Israelis) were included as possibilities? It seems like some of these semantic issues are genuinely crucial to some of the principals involved -- even though, at the same time, they seem disingenuous or counterproductive to others.

Part of it is rhetoric, I agree. But to a certain exist, it just comes down to the absurdity of it all - how is Israel supposed to have any sort of realistic peace/whatever talks with a group that refuses to accept its right to exist as a state? On a very, very basic level that undermines any legitimacy of what goes on.

and yeah I remember reading that and liking it too charlie. I think it was nyt?

I dunno, I just think that "Palestinians don't recognize our right to exist!" and "Israelis are forgetting about the Holocaust!" are both basically shorthand for "rather than attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion during the course of which we may discover that we are both guilty of mistakes, I am going to call you a subhuman being of pure evil who lacks the capability for rational discourse, and therefore I win by default".

(this is the driving force of like 90% of political discourse though (and 99.99% of it on the internet) so it's not like anyone should really be surprised)

"Israelis are forgetting about the Holocaust!"

eh?

Part of it is rhetoric, I agree. But to a certain exist, it just comes down to the absurdity of it all - how is Israel supposed to have any sort of realistic peace/whatever talks with a group that refuses to accept its right to exist as a state? On a very, very basic level that undermines any legitimacy of what goes on.

― iatee, Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hamas acknowledges the existence of Israel as a reality but formal recognition will only be considered when a Palestinian state has been created, the movement’s exiled leader Khaled Meshaal said on Wednesday.

Softening a previous refusal to accept the Jewish state’s existence, Meshaal said Israel was a “matter of fact” and a reality that will persist.

“There will remain a state called Israel,” Meshaal said in an interview in the Syrian capital, in what appeared to be clearest statement yet by the Islamist group on its attitude toward the state it previously said had no right to exist.

“The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel,” said Meshaal, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt in 1997. “The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.”

xpost the thing upthread where people were talking about the annoying tendency to say that Israel is perpetrating A SECOND HOLOCAUST and OH HOW SHORT OUR MEMORIES ARE etc etc

I think if Hamas were more vocal about the above POV it would probably suffice

I mean this really is all semantics right now, and it's esp difficult for us to analyze because he doesn't speak English (just checked)

one of my pet peeves in high school english was when people overanalyzed a single word in a translated book. the csm article needs to have been written by an arabic speaker.

I definitely agree with the above, but my point is that regardless of precisely what the term is supposed to mean, it's basically used to accuse the Palestinians of thoughtcrime.

and then say "look, we obviously acknowledge that there is a country called Israel and we are willing to talk to it and see if we convince it to get off our land, but you're kidding yourself if you think we're going to say that it SHOULD be there"

There's also the question -- ideally, mostly mooted by the two-state solution -- of whether Israel's "right to exist" = "right to exist as a Jewish state in perpetuity". In other words, the difference between "the people who are there should stay there, and shouldn't be fucked with" vs. "the people who are there should stay there, shouldn't be fucked with, and have a right to pursue policies to ensure that their demographic maintains a solid majority".

(But then we get into the whole quagmire: is Israel like South Africa? Like most countries, many of which take measures to preserve their particular demographic? Somewhere in between? Under what circumstances is government intervention in these matters acceptable? If the Han Chinese had organically overrun Tibet, as opposed to being spurred on by the gov't, would that be more OK? etc. etc. etc.)

I think I'm accusing them of doublethink

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/26/opinion/edatran.php?page=1

found the aforementioned article

the comments bit i thought was shocking was from the indie article btw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/movies/02godard.html

But Mr. Ganis and others in the academy have fielded queries from members who question the propriety of an award that is drawing attention not just to Mr. Godard’s well-known disregard for Hollywood but also to positions and statements in which he has mingled his mistrust of the mainstream movie world with a wariness of traits he associates with Jews.

a "wariness of traits he associates with ________" is my new favorite euphemism and defense for racism.

which in this case seems bullshittish

In one of the more striking such statements, in a 1985 interview in Le Matin quoted in Richard Brody’s 2008 biography, Mr. Godard spoke of the film industry as being bound up in Jewish usury.

“What I find interesting in the cinema is that, from the beginning, there is the idea of debt,” he is quoted as saying. “The real producer is, all the same, the image of the Central European Jew.”

Between translation and lack of context, I'm not sure what's going on in this statement. But it seems strange to call out "debt" in filmmaking. Does he mean the idea that a film has investors who want to make money?

See Godard thread; Brody wrote in his New Yorker blog that NYT quotes were brief, w/out context and misleading.

whoa fuck one (1) godard

not reeeeaaaallly surprised that brody is standing up for his boy there

also not too surprised that a conservative-modernist euro intellectual is an anti-semite; more surprised that he gets shine on the left... oh no hang on that's not right is it?

http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs38/feat_krohn_brody.html

interestingly this long review bends over backwards to defend godard from the charges of anti-semitism (actually: documented instances of anti-semitism) in brody;s book. curiouser and curiouser.

DG, who are you, and have you ever seen a Godard film?

bulletin boards, fulla fucking rabble

Modish mid twentieth century anti-semitism, Ezra Pound style.

nice balance w/ Tarantino's racism and ILX's hatred of Christianity, anyhoo

doctor morbius, i'm the guy that created the board you are posting on, and yes i have - good films don't make people saints, cf roman 'i like drug raping children' polanski

no argument, i'm a fan of Jerry Lewis

per Brody, I really don't recall another filmmaker returning again and again to contemplation of the Holocaust in the way Godard has.

cf roman 'i like drug raping children' polanski

Oh, it's "children," huh. Your board is its father's child.

go fuck a 13 year old, see what the prosecutor thinks

I meant yr use of plural.

Now it aaallllllll makes sense.

I really don't recall another filmmaker returning again and again to contemplation of the Holocaust in the way Godard has.

― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 2:54 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

ah, 'contemplation'. not really sure what to make of the strand in late godard, about the failure of hollywood bosses to 'film' and thereby prevent the holocaust. sounds like pretty typical godardian pseudo-intellectual bullshit to me. making 'night train to munich' and 'contraband' did not stop the battle of britain. but either way, godard is not much of an historian.

Modish mid twentieth century anti-semitism, Ezra Pound style.

― sandra lee, gimme your alcohol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, November 3, 2010 2:33 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

'modish'? among whom? kind of sure that becoming il duce's hypeman wasn't widely regarded as an intelligent move. obviously a lot of lit crit has been about trying to rescue the reputations of the likes of pound.

come on DG he only drugraped *one* child

like you've never made a single mistake in your life

well apparently he created the board you're posting on

true :(

sad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11960291

i have a 9-year old daughter attending a jewish parochial school (in coral gables (fla), not the uk). security is a constant concern. stories like this break my heart.

"Faith schools make a fantastic contribution to our education system and none more so than Jewish faith schools," Education Secretary Michael Gove said.

this was already happening, just now the govt takes the bill (which they ought to have done already) and of course it allows for such soundbites in support of the cross party consensus on 'faith schools'

the statistics cited there don't look good but i've never heard of a jewish school being attacked....you'd think the threat would be to kids going to/from school

it's sad that these concerns exist whether the govt foots the security bill or not

I remember when I was growing up we often had security guards posted at the Jewish day school. It's kinda terrifying when you're a kid.

The Jewish Free School in Camden Town always had security guards when I was a kid, and stepped it up pretty hard in 2001. They moved wayyy out of town soon after - still in London but, like, zone 4 - and ppl speculated that it was partly so they could build a more defensible school. (NB this was not the stated reason, which was more to do w/ the Jewish population of London living further north nowadays.)

I remember when I was growing up we often had security guards posted at the Jewish day school. It's kinda terrifying when you're a kid.

― Mordy, Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:24 (38 seconds ago)

this is why i wonder if it's a good thing....frightens the kids, inculcates a siege mentality at an impressionable age

i'd guess some of these schools have received threats from some bedroom jihadi types and ppl are understandably scared to death, so it has to be done

nonetheless i'd caution against thinking the uk is a few steps from kristallnacht (as alleged in an inflammatory documentary by racist troll richard littlejohn a few years ago)

it's not 1933 but i think you are being very glib

I don't think I could ever feel comfortable living in the UK because of historical anti-Semitism, even tho I'm sure it's much much better there today than say in 1190. Maybe because of a siege mentality.

things have improved a bit in 820 years to be fair

I don't think I could ever feel comfortable living in the UK because of historical bubonic plague tbh

Also not forgiven anybody for the Peasant's Revolt.

cautioning against glibness

these security concerns are nothing new, and probably won't go away any time soon

it's dreadful but the same concerns exist in france, america, etc

idk, on that logic i wouldn't want to be black in america

xposts to mordy

me neither!

these security concerns are nothing new, and probably won't go away any time soon

it's dreadful but the same concerns exist in france, america, etc

― nakhchivan, Thursday, December 9, 2010 5:47 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark

well, they're a little bit new. anti-semitic violence has gone up in the last decade.

holding up france as an example is not really going to clinch you much in an argument about anti-semitism!

xpost lol

I swear that the Synagogue in Hull which was in a fairly rough part of the city that I used to live in had a security guard outside when there were meetings. This was in the early 90s in what was an unusually white city for the UK at the time. Never knew why the guy was there tho.

Actually there were probably NF-type fuckwits around capable of violence.

I don't think I could ever feel comfortable living in the UK because of historical anti-Semitism

yeah little hugh of lincoln was a while back

there probably is more of a mild antisemitism at all levels of society than in america, but off-colour remarks about israel is a separate issue to threats of violence, which are almost certain to be from either jihadists or nazis, both rather peripheral groups in england because of our historical antinaziism and antijihadism

holding up france as an example is not really going to clinch you much in an argument about anti-semitism!

example cuz those are the two other western countries with big jewish populations, tho yes things are worse in paris than new york

off-colour remarks about israel is a separate issue to threats of violence, which are almost certain to be from either jihadists or nazis

i wouldn't say so, and i don't think all the anti-semitic graffiti during the gaza war was from jihadis, exactly

I almost never encounter British people who dislike Jews. Do these British anti-Semites never leave the UK except in published form?

I think the US has tons of passive anti-Semitism, not like hate but a lack of familiarity with or appreciation for Jews.

idk, on that logic i wouldn't want to be black in america

xposts to mordy

― man dem coalition (history mayne), Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:47 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

me neither!

― Mordy, Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:48 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

charming

i wouldn't say so, and i don't think all the anti-semitic graffiti during the gaza war was from jihadis, exactly

― man dem coalition (history mayne), Thursday, 9 December 2010 17:55 (3 seconds ago)

that falls somewhere between those categories then

i don't think jewish schools are under threat from militant trots but yr welcome to cite relevant evidence

Quite a bit of coded anti-Semitism from a certain kind of conservative upper middle class dude *COUGH*richardingrams*COUGH*. Quite a bit of kneejerk anti-Semitism from the lumpenleft/same dudes who specialise in kneejerk anti-Americanism, filters thru all levels of society tbh

nv otm

but off-colour remarks about israel

pretty certain security guards aren't there to protect against fashionable 'progressive' opinions

That Dawkins geezer can get pretty tasty when he's had a few.

that's what's nakh's saying i think

xpost

was agreeing with you mr HM

I know I'll probably piss someone off here but I hate it when Americans with no ties to the middle east just spout off about Israel with this vague criticism of American Jews. I am not Jewish but sometimes I get the vibe that some people don't feel comfortable around Jews or maybe don't trust them. This seems illiterate and un-American to me, it is shocking to encounter, but I have encountered it from people who are not racist activists or "Zioni$m" nutcases.

Jews have no future in Holland'

By Michel Zlotowski, December 9, 2010

Due to the growing hostility ofa large part of Holland's Muslim population, Dutch Jews should emigrate to the United States or to Israel, said Frits Bolkestein, former European Commissioner and ex-leader of Holland's ruling right-wing VVD party.

The statement appeared in the book Het Verval (The Decline), written by Manfred Gerstenfeld, a Netherlands-born Holocaust survivor and senior researcher at the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs.

The book, published last week, examines the attitude of the Dutch Protestant Church towards Jews and argues that antisemitism is not restricted to people of Muslim background in the Netherlands.

pretty sure it's the dutch police that run a force of, er, 'decoy jews', ie cops dressed in orthodox attire in order to bait racists

also, this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00c342p

I think the US has tons of passive anti-Semitism, not like hate but a lack of familiarity with or appreciation for Jews.

There are lots of places in the US where those who live there have possibly never met a Jewish person in their lives. So the whole "lack of familiarity with or appreciation for" is kind of a given?

i dunno enough about the netherlands but i dread hearing such 'no future' rhetoric directed at/coming from british jews

at a certain point u gotta cut your losses.....but i don't think a few jihadi degenerates have made things that bad

of course the education of young muslims is a wider issue, and isn't helped by our lack of any apparent foreign policy goals not sourced from washington (i digress)

oh yeah i personally wouldn't subscribe to any 'no future' rhetoric, not least because i enjoy aggro, but i do think it is seriously worthy of concern as to how blithely people disregard overt displays of hatred or seek to hold all jews accountable for israel etc

again i still think you gotta think of violence/threats separately from left/liberal 'intellectual' antisemitism.....even if they have a cumulative effect

most ppl don't care about israel one way or the other

admittedly i don't associate with a lot of leftists but i'd be fairly confident that someone who srsly suggested israeli state policy was an issue about jews in general would be told to stfu in most circles

again i still think you gotta think of violence/threats separately from left/liberal 'intellectual' antisemitism.....even if they have a cumulative effect

i think they're both worthy of concern tbqh

i'd be fairly confident that someone who srsly suggested israeli state policy was an issue about jews in general would be told to stfu in most circles

i wouldn't

admittedly i don't associate with a lot of leftists

this is all going in your file

i think they're both worthy of concern tbqh

did i say otherwise

i wouldn't

ha i had second thoughts about that after posting

if ppl don't object to rhetoric like that, it's more likely cuz they are being timid/nonconfrontational/english than cuz they share it

anything to avoid an upset etc

only reason i joined combat 18 tbh, the awkward pause after i was invited was killing me

will ye have a cup of nuremberg tea

anything to avoid an upset etc

really wish i had yr faith

u gotta spend less time with elderly french film directors

someone who srsly suggested israeli state policy was an issue about jews in general

you realize this is how a lot of pro-Israelis frame their defenses of various monstrosities

should have seen the mess that guy made of my rug xp

casual-to-virulent anti-muslim sentiment seems far more prevalent in the UK to me than anti-semitism so this is quite a surprise but admittedly i never thought/knew much about increased security/fears at jewish schools and it all seems significantly more outside the radar

seems likely they feed off each other

nearly 7 times as many muslims as jews in the uk as well

casual-to-virulent anti-muslim sentiment seems far more prevalent in the UK to me than anti-semitism

Yeah this has seemed to be the case to me too.

Never in my life have I heard or overheard anyone ragging on Jewish people, obv I'm not a statistically worthwhile sampling in myself I guess. really it's off my radar too.

casual-to-virulent anti-muslim sentiment seems far more prevalent in the UK to me than anti-semitism

would venture this is true in the US as well

French dude just told me same about France.

something about muslim faith schools here but seems like their quantity and profile isn't quite high enough here to have caused the same concerns

when did the term 'faith schools' become commonplace? guessing within last 10 years in common with rebranding of oldtime fire and brimstone religion as new inclusive communitarian right-thinking ~faith~ [via t blair]

sigh http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12350913

I'm glad I don't live there!

It's really not that bad

In Worcester, someone daubed the word "Jew" on a pavement, accompanied by an arrow pointing towards a drain.

!!!!!!

It wasn't me, honest

It's really not that bad

I know what you mean, but all the same I'm guessing that only a fraction of incidents ever get reported.

ohoh louis theroux is trending already

ooh twitter racism outbreak has brought on the er 'fail whale'

DG - that report says incidents are down by a third from last year. Isn't the trend the important thing?

they're down because the previous year had a spike, the overall trend is upward

so yes, it is

I can't see the figures before 2000 in that CST report. Do you have them?

no but feel free to email the cst, i'm sure they'd be happy to hear from you

Also, it's good that the CST publicise such incidents, but I'm unclear how they control for changes in reporting and recording behaviour over the years, which is important if their data is to be used to make longitudinal comparisons. Even they say that the rise "partly reflects the increased size and scope of the CST's work, and better reporting rates to CST from the Jewish community".

well i dont work for them so like i say, feel free to email them to quiz them about their methodology

But it doesn't interest you too?

lol, what are you hoping to gain from checking out the methodology? "oh look, methodological problems. UK is just as anti-semitic as its ever been, not significantly more."

we could probably save a bit of bandwidth if you just said what you wanted to say instead of trying to nudge me towards some sort of exciting revelation of my damning misunderstanding of stats nick

I suspect you understand stats as well as I do. I'm not trying to say anything other than expressing a certain scepticism about the way stats get pushed in press releases to journalists. If asked to guess, I'd say that there was a real, depressing, spike in antisemitic incidents last year, that it's subsiding and that the longer-term trend is flattish.

I'm probably not going to email the CST questions because I'm lazy and would vaguely worry about being mistaken for some weird antisemite obsessing over their work.

well i'm glad yr optimistic but i'm not feeling it myself

wonder what he said

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG8347082/John-Galliano-suspended-by-Dior-following-arrest-over-anti-semitic-rant.html

http://www.leparisien.fr/laparisienne/actu-people/antisemitisme-presume-galliano-suspendu-de-ses-fonctions-chez-dior-25-02-2011-1331441.php

Le Parisien is reporting that he said, «Dirty jewish face, you should be dead», and «Fucking Asian bastard, I will kill you». That first one sounds odd. "Sale tête de juif" is a perfectly traditional anti-Semitic thing to say in French but who would say that in English? Maybe he was speaking Franglish.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/02/medium_snyderbg.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020206136.html?sid=ST2011020202710

oh glenn

not so shocked about the reform rabbis claim as I am rmde at alleging that Holocaust-survivor George Soros collaborated with the Nazis to send Jews to death camps

wait, it's anti-Semitic to draw devil horns and a goatee on a picture...?

they gave him john galliano's facial hair

According to Rabbi Abraham Cooper, scribbling a beard and devil horns on a photo of someone is "a symbol associated with virulent anti-Semitism going back to the Middle Ages, deployed by the genocidal Nazi regime, by Soviet propagandists and even in 2011 by those who still seek to demonize Jews today."

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/662,2068869/Did-Moses-have-horns.html

The mistranslation that causes Michelangelo to portray Moses with horns (instead of 'radiant') has nothing to do with the demonization of a pre-Christian European horned god.

I had heard the "Jews have horns" things before but never actually connected that with the picture defacing

I feel like someone shat on my childhood

I bet you drew penises too.

THAT'S ANTI-SEMITIC TOO?????

depends - were they circumcised

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EMR4FQ95GP4/SeB--_hrUdI/AAAAAAAAEIw/kuC2kX4IpJ4/s400/Poster+-+Young+Man+With+a+Horn_03.jpg

kirk is jewish too

I might get a horn making out w/Betty, too.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3436757/Film-of-John-Gallianos-racist-rant-in-bar.html

Classic. Fashion designer an arrogant hateful dick SHOCKAH!

This article was amended on 27 February 2011. The original headline, 'Bon viveur? Yes. Racist? Non', was felt to have been misleading, by giving the impression the writer had concluded John Galliano was not a racist before any allegation had been fully investigated. It has now been changed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/25/john-galliano-paris-shows-doubt

lol

"It was the Dom Perignon talking, occifer, honest..."

oh gawd

No one was surprised that Dior suspended him pending the police investigation.

yeah, the fashion industry is well known for its high ethical standards

one season, he was Fagin in squished black top hat and hobnail boots;

erm

the 'second mumford and sons album cover look' as it will be known

Oh, it'll come out he had a "reaction" to medication, or some such...

Galliano caused offence for what many perceived as gross insensitivity a decade ago when he used outfits improvised against harsh weather by homeless people in Paris, whom he saw every day while out running, as inspiration for a couture collection worth upwards of £10,000 per garment.

haha omg

Oh, it'll come out he had a "reaction" to medication, or some such...

"With parole as inducement, Virgil submits to the vaccine test. It is a success, except for one temporary side effect. For several hours, he is turned into a rabbi."

http://dryden.eastmanhouse.org/media/tamo.jpg

LOL @ unemployed racist wanker

Waiting to see how 'troubled' he is - I am suspecting major issues here besides assholism and alcohol, dude was drinking solo which is NAGL but as of now, no scary Dior press office to back up/hide his bullshit. Good on Natalie Portman for speaking up, because I'm sure her threat to quit over it was probably the last straw.

The irony is killing me: a gay man would be oven-ready in Nazi Germany too.

According to some Guardian journalist on Twitter, Julian Assange has told Private Eye that he blames a "Jewish conspiracy" for his predicament. Classy dude staying classy.

a gay man would be oven-ready in Nazi Germany too.

Exactly what I was thinking

why would he tell private eye that? richard ingrams is no longer editor anyway

Most people who bang on about Jewish conspiracies don't actually know any Jews for reals.

Disturbing part of the Galliano story is that he's doing sterling work giving homophobes ammo for the 'bitchy gay man' angle in lots of the reporting. Gay friends already complaining about it.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/images/media/privateeye_assange1.gif

http://liberalconspiracy.org/images/media/privateeye_assange2.gif

oops, bit hard to read, try here: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/01/assange-goes-off-deep-end-blaming-jews-and-guardian-in-private-eye/

Actually, suzy, part of fully accepting the humanity of homosexuals is realizing that their capacity to be drunken, racist assholes is every bit as large as any other person's.

For me, the real story is about how sheltered someone so pampered can become and how that deference paid him has obviously sheltered him from having to interact with normal people who would otherwise call him on this inane BS.

Also, it's interesting to me that Arnault/LVMH acted so quickly and so firmly to protect not only Dior's rep but possibly all their other holdings.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/kashmirhill/files/2010/12/Julian-Assange-OkCupid-Profile.jpg

rip big man

a gay man would be oven-ready in Nazi Germany too.

eh Ernst Rohm wasn't exactly executed because he was gay y'know

MW, I agree with you - I am merely passing on what my friends are complaining about in the reporting of the story and people's comments in social media.

The Nazis were not as rigorous in their homophobia as in other forms of hate but oven-ready is a felicitous way of putting it, nonetheless, Shakey.

sometimes when i'm in stamford hill morrisons (supermarket) i see lots of jewish people stocking up on baby/face wipes. lots and lots of them. why is this?

Christian babies need to be ritually cleaned before we make matzos out of them

controversial stuff from the west coast lenny bruce as many are calling him

shit is it too late to make a "Well he can probably get a job at Hugo Boss" joke or have we moved on to Assange?

^^^^^LOLLLLLL also, Chanel.

stamford hill eh? reminds me of this delightful piece in the indie

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/christina-patterson-the-limits-of-multiculturalism-2036861.html

Wow, she's all over the place there.

When I first moved to Stamford Hill, I didn't realise that goyim were about as welcome in Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention

first they came for the subeditors

shit is it too late to make a "Well he can probably get a job at Hugo Boss" joke or have we moved on to Assange?

― no pop, no style -- all simply (Viceroy), Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:24 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

nice

...googling reveals, perforated lines and tearing things. not allowed on shabbat.

yeah that christina patterson piece is... well, i'd like to watch her responding to the stuart lee skit on muslim women at weight watchers in stoke newington.

not really hard to see why the indie was sold for £1

and it's still the least shit uk paper afaict

follow up "battle of stamford hill" piece

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manners-multiculturalism-and-the-battle-of-stamford-hill-2040039.html

and it's still the least shit uk paper afaict

― they will have been disappointed not to have been (nakhchivan), Tuesday, March 1, 2011 5:41 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark

o_O

say it then

i'd rather read the mail

frontin like a day today second tierer

the mail is my favorite uk paper

ya but u r all abt blogworthy content rather andreas whittman smith stuff

shit, sorry aws my editorial staff are on shabbat

anyway in terms of reading, guardian then mail cuz of their sites and thoroughness of fitba content

long train journeys -- the independent probably

haven't read the assange thing yet, in detail. it's kind of comically predictable, though, given the company he keeps, etc etc etc. in a weird way im 'disappointed' that it's this predictable.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-John-Galliano/196742293678648

gross

fuck "le politiquement correct"

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/3/2/1299058850602/Japanese-pop-band-Kishida-007.jpg

Japanese pop group Kishidan's 'Nazi' outfits force Sony to apologise

kula shaker tribute act?

a flock of seig heils

*applause*

Disturbing part of the Galliano story is that he's doing sterling work giving homophobes ammo for the 'bitchy gay man' angle

Yeah, that's the disturbing part.

a flock of seig heils

lol

When I first moved to Stamford Hill, I didn't realise that goyim were about as welcome in Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention

Wow sorry to hear you got assassinated, columnist.

That didn't happen at a Klu Klux Klan convention, did it?

no but i think the meaning is clear eh

Dr. King offended by the "monosyllabic terseness" he received at Klan rally

When I first moved to Stamford Hill

... you missed out the fact that she's been living there for 12 years, I'd say she's the one with the problem!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/antisemitism-hatred-wont-go-away

The Eye's editor, Ian Hislop, says Assange told him that central to the plot was "the Guardian, which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'". That certainly came as news to Rusbridger.

Uh, but the Guardian is forever getting stick for being anti-Israel etc

comments disabled haha

Funereal ambiance at Dior show

Faustine François (au Musée Rodin)
04/03/2011 | Mise à jour : 17:46 Réactions (2)

The Dior show took place this afternoon iat the Rodin Museum in Paris. The décor is sober, only the Dior logo is visible amidst the crystal chendeliers and the plexiglass marquetry. A rare event, the show starts with a speech by the brand's COO, Sidney Toledano. "What has happened is a test… such comments are inacceptable. The fact that the the name of Dior was mixed up with such intolerable comments through its designer, however brilliant he may be, is very painful. The workers are sick at heart. What you're about to see is the fruit of their immense work."

In the front row, very few celebrities.

John Galliano's name is never uttered. In the front row, very few celebrities unlike other seasons. Tormented violins set the pace for the balmk faced models. The ambiance is heavy and emotions run high when the dressmakers come out to salute the public in the place of the ex-artistic director. Afterwards at the exits the sun shines but, hidden behind their sunglasses, no-one smiles. Heard in the crowd, "Fashion has lost another genius."

(my quick translation)

http://i.imgur.com/gtk9A.jpg

I do not know what that picture is about.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/djsaunders/2011/06/02/foreskin-man-no-2-front-cover.jpg

yes btw

http://www.foreskinman.com/images/foreskin-man-card-back-325.jpg

http://www.foreskinman.com/images/monster-mohel-card-back-325.jpg

Also maybe this deserves its own thread but anti-(male)circumsition activists are fucking lunatics each and every one. What a weird bullshit thing to get yourself worked up about.

"intactivists"

Sullivan has been flirting with "intactivism" himself. He's never met a crazy tunnel he didn't want to go down.

Wait, that comic isn't a joke?

If so, then ????????

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbtxcONHo1qa9bmvo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1307379781&Signature=KvefKbsXW5b6Y1V9npKapmRIxq0%3D

Also maybe this deserves its own thread but anti-(male)circumsition activists are fucking lunatics each and every one. What a weird bullshit thing to get yourself worked up about.

― Mordy, Sunday, June 5, 2011 9:55 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

eh, anything taken to extremes = lunacy & will attract lunatics, but considering male circumcision grotesque & harmful doesn't seem insane on the face of it.

Sullivan has been flirting with "intactivism" himself. He's never met a crazy tunnel he didn't want to go down.

― Mordy, Sunday, June 5, 2011 6:01 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

could be a british thing. gentile brits go unsnipped.

that baby's chiseled, beefy jaw.

on the face of it -- non-harmful procedure that predates all western society + culture and is intricately linked to at least two of the most influential and important faiths on the planet.

um -- sounds pretty insane to me.

haha abbott i was just http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

"it was inevitable that foreskin man and the intactivist underground would cross paths..." http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

predates all western society + culture and is intricately linked to at least two of the most influential and important faiths on the planet.

oh great where do i get one?

i love things that predate western society and are also religious rituals!

like considering it grotesque and not doing it to your own children is cool and all but trying to ban it is really nutcase territory esp since not only is it not harmful and has no deleterious affects but actually has some positive correlations to things like HIV rate

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

xp, so you're saying it should be encouraged?

like considering it grotesque and not doing it to your own children is cool and all but trying to ban it is really nutcase territory esp since not only is it not harmful and has no deleterious affects but actually has some positive correlations to things like HIV rate

just stop there imo.

http://www.tlctugger.com/

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbudaZH2L1qa9bmvo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1307380232&Signature=%2BebfQOlf6e8tOBfftp%2BVsT9AVs0%3D
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

wtf is that tinsel symbol they have hoisted onto an oil derrick? Is it a bad drawing of fetal genitals before external differentiation?

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.pngwe're having a bonfire. would you like to join us?http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

My USA experience: Weird (not weird) that all the anti-male-circumcision zealots I've met seem to be female. Awesome how they never notice the men around them not participating in their mission. Guess why!

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html -- worth checking out. I wouldn't encourage it but WHO does.

comic is one of the most ridiculous things i've ever seen:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj242/donaldparsley/foreskinmandetailsmall.jpg

the kid's face!

dang a billion x-posts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzKjvxS5QfA

love that the inactivist hotty mchothot speaks through first her tit, then her arse

her last name is "kumming" http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

anti-circumcision zealots are my favorite -- "how dare you make a decision for a baby!!" always makes me picture a baby sitting in a chair just shitting itself silly and the parents being all "well hey it's not our decision to wipe your ass. that's something you're going to have to decide on your own."

WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package...

right, but that's hardly the same as getting involved in the crazy debate in the U.S., which is why i would leave it out.

anti-circumcision zealots are my favorite -- "how dare you make a decision for a baby!!" always makes me picture a baby sitting in a chair just shitting itself silly and the parents being all "well hey it's not our decision to wipe your ass. that's something you're going to have to decide on your own."

― b.o.s.e. (banned ones still envy) (J0rdan S.), Sunday, June 5, 2011 6:15 PM (50 seconds ago) Bookmark

totally similar!

both are equally counterintuitive!

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

http://waggleroom.com/images/admin/john_daly_mug.jpg

"does the little baby want his haircut? WELL MAYBE HE SHOULD DRIVE TO THE FUCKING BARBER THEN."

http://www.icgi.org/wp-content/themes/mistylook-101/img/misty.jpg

not only is it not harmful and has no deleterious affects but actually has some positive correlations to things like HIV rate

― Mordy, Sunday, June 5, 2011 10:08 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

aids prevention benefits shouldn't be discounted (seem legit), but "harm" gets subjective fast. some would say that to cut is to harm, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

http://www.nocirc.org/images/logos_banners/header.jpg

"what's that? the little baby cut his head on the coffee table? WELL I THINK HE KNOWS WHERE TO GET STITCHES."

http://intactivists.blogspot.com/2011/04/intactivist-overheard.html

Quote from an intactivist mother in the United States:

To do a surgery on the sex organs of a baby for cosmetic and future sex-related reasons is a bunch of pedophilia. LADIES, I AM SAYING IT! I am tired of beating around the bush. Cutting and handling of baby genitals is medicalized pedopilia. I am telling you, I am straight up telling this to people now. Spread the word that circ is sick. It is no longer an argument of is it cleaner, better looking, the parents choice, etc. We've moved beyond that. Circumcision is here because the biggest pedophiles: Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Graham. They were such sickos that they created hospitals to torture, mutilate, and purposely traumatize children with genital torture and cutting... PEDOPHILES. And I am losing it, I can't take this country much longer. If a bill doesn't pass I'm moving to Denmark or any other place that has zero culture of mutilation. AND, for the record, I am tired of talking about it and having to educate and convince people not to f-ing cut up their own babies genitals. I am tired of talking about other peoples babies genitals. They should care more about protecting their baby from profiteering knife-wielding doctors.

Note from Intactivist.net: This frustration is all too common. People who are involved in this movement really, truly care about the children they are desperately trying to protect. Sometimes it gets to the point where we explode because it seems no one is hearing us. I heard another conversation where someone asked why does it seem like "intactivists" are crazy or sometimes even rude... that is not the intent at all. The answer given to this person was that it's just that we know too much, we know and we're trying to tell you, and we can see it so clearly for what it is, and we just want to protect children.

Strapping a baby down, or holding it down as is the case in many a bris, and then ripping apart that child's genitals and slicing parts off... does this really seem like a *sane* thing to do? Think on this for a moment, really meditate on it. Don't you agree that this should not even happen?

"ugh, my parents are so lame. not only is my curfew 11 pm on weekends, but they also circumcised me."

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png LADIES, I AM SAYING IT! http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

"Transferring data from www.foreskinman.com": browser status bar text you never thought you would see.

anyone who has an opinion either way about circumcision of other people's kids in the US or Europe to the extent that they campaign about it is crazy imo. there, i said it.

to be fair the advantages of circumcision probably look more relevant in statistics that include the third world than they actually are to people who can shower daily and go to the doctor.

Have you ever heard of someone campaigning for other ppl to circumcise their kids or are u just being evenhanded?

do they have opinions about belly buttons?

Have you ever heard of someone campaigning for other ppl to circumcise their kids or are u just being evenhanded?

― Mordy, Sunday, June 5, 2011 6:26 PM (33 seconds ago) Bookmark

dude

im pretty sure all the circumsizing parents didn't just come up with the (admittedly obvious, great, why-would-you-not) idea independently

like considering it grotesque and not doing it to your own children is cool and all but trying to ban it is really nutcase territory esp since not only is it not harmful and has no deleterious affects but actually has some positive correlations to things like HIV rate

^^^ seemed like a weird thing to slip in there at the end in the context of a comic book by american crazy people

i'm not suggesting you're actually "campaigning" or whatever, but you don't really need to bring out "circumcision is good" to win an argument with these people.

Well, my parents came up w the idea bc our family has been doing it for like two thousand years I guess xp

caek ur being weird

brisses are dope for the food

My original comment wasn't a response to comic writers but to contenderizer

i think my initial knee-jerk response when i first heard about this intactivist movement was that it was something along the lines of a reactionary men's rights type thing because of all the focus on anti-female circumcision.

brisses are dope for the food

all that christian blood

Zayde did a lot of campaigning tbh cause he was jonesing to be a sandek

Have you ever heard of someone campaigning for other ppl to circumcise their kids or are u just being evenhanded?

― Mordy, Sunday, June 5, 2011 10:26 AM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark

have no idea what things are like today, but i've been told that when i was a kid (late 60s, 70s), non-circumcision was frowned on in america, seen as kooky and unhygienic, that medical professionals strongly encouraged parents of male children to circumcise. maybe this was a product of my parents' american culture, and not the national standard, i dunno. i.e., in america, this is a campaign against a pervasive social norm, not against an opposing team.

^ a big garbled, but i think the gist is p clear.

i think my initial knee-jerk response when i first heard about this intactivist movement was that it was something along the lines of a reactionary men's rights type thing because of all the focus on anti-female circumcision.

― sarahel, Sunday, June 5, 2011 10:32 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, i thought the same thing. that may have helped fuel the fire, but in the long run, i think it has more to do with our culture of sacred babyhood and the anxieties abt western medicine that spurred the anti-vaccination movement.

i once heard an anti-semite (or was he? let the thread decide!) claim that Jewish doctors forced circumcision on Americans because in case the Nazis rose to power again they didn't want them to have any easy way of checking to see who was Jewish. I don't actually know how pervasive circumcision is tho in any community outside the Jewish one. If medical professionals were pushing it tho, I imagine it's bc they actually believed it was medically valuable + worth doing, which invalidates the "pro + anti circumcision equally crazy" equivocation.

like considering it grotesque and not doing it to your own children is cool and all but trying to ban it is really nutcase territory

OTM. educate abt your cause, and if you've got a case, people will start to come around.

If medical professionals were pushing it tho, I imagine it's bc they actually believed it was medically valuable + worth doing, which invalidates the "pro + anti circumcision equally crazy" equivocation.

― Mordy, Sunday, June 5, 2011 10:56 AM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark

i'm willing to believe that ancient tradition and modern medicine might well be equally crazy, not that i have a horse in this race.

xp Ancient Greece also had stigmas surrounding circumcision and Hellenized Jews who wanted to participate in the Olympics had to do a foreskin reattachment in order to compete. That mostly emerged from a culture of the sacred body and the sanctity of the male form.

In 1970, in my high school P.E. class, the percentage of boys with foreskins was similar to the number of boys who were jewish, at maybe 3 out of 50 for each category. Clearly, something was at work here besides jewish traditions.

I don't actually know how pervasive circumcision is tho in any community outside the Jewish one.

Um, it's SOP in the US. And it's also totally indefensible.

I think the real problem with the equivocation is that no one is trying to push a mandatory circumcision law, ppl are trying to make it illegal (here in the US and abroad).

fyi there are two issues of "foreskin man" -- "foreskin man no. 1" concerns doctors who love to circumcise babies, while in "foreskin man no. 2" foreskin man battles "monster mohel"

who wins?

this guy: http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmbu5v5owV1qa9bmvo1_100.png

The apparent medical justification for universal circumcision was the belief that boys were highly unlikely to wash their penises properly and lack of a foreskin would make hygeine much simpler for their tiny minds to encompass.