Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2610 of them)
It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

I've often thought the biggest problem with the often nebulous and knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism is that there is an extri special word for it (ie it ain't called Anti-Judaism). Islamophobic is incleasingly being brought in to mean a similar kind of thing for Islam - though certainly not as loaded. But there is no real offical word for hating Christians.

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's not vile to be desperately upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians is it, given the circumstances of the founding of Israel from a political standpoint? Admittedly, the founding of Israel on the ground kinda started to whole treatment of Palestinaians thing thing, but...

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, the Holocaust one I'm not entirely convinced about, Enrique. Some Jewish people argue, not that it is time to forget, but time to get out of a victim-casting obsession with past persecution. Not because they are self-haters, but because they think it helps Jewish culture move on, and because in certain hands, the Holocaust issue is almost used as a trump card in all arguments, which is obviously irritating.

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.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:50 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a bit vile to say that Israel only exists because the Jews 'used' the Holocaust as leverage, which is what a lot of revisionist leftists do in their attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a nation. In its less nuanced uses, this is what the Finkelstein book does. Obviousy it shouldn't be used to justify current hostilities against the Palestinians, but I can understand why it was used back in the 1940s, when the area was a British mandate-colony.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

What we learned from the Holocaust is that it is a very wrong idea to separate people out according to religion/sexuality (remember Catholics and homosexuals also suffered there), place them in internment camps and then kill them. What we learned from apartheid is that it is wrong to separate people out by skin colour and deny them access to cities and areas and basic civil rights as if on a whim. I would suggest to Israelis of a 'pioneer' bent to learn from the Holocaust and apartheid the lesson about onetime victims relishing their turn on bully duty, and to find a way to resist.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

i thought it said 'jews should stop "playing the violin" for the holocaust'... i wish they had worded it that way because i don't think nearly as many people would be in favour of stopping violins!

jeremy jordan (cruisy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

Is it racist to say that a religion is intolerant? It would certianly be racist to say that Jews were intolerant.

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.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

How much of the fear and mistrust of Judaism comes from it being a non-evangelical religion (menkos Jews 4 Jebus notwithstanding).

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

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.


Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

You're right, Enrique, about no-one calling you racist for taking issue with Christianity's dogma on sexuality. But what about the statement that Judaism might be about love and charity in principle but is is not interpreted like that? Do you mean actual Jews don't act out of love and charity? Or do you mean gentiles don't regard Judaism as about love and charity?

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...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

Pete, that's not at the heart of it at all. The Romans/Greeks didn't really 'get' monotheism, but it's the crapness of Christianity and its prostletysing that created a great deal of anti-Semitic sentiment, what with chasing the money-lenders out of the temple yada yada and people judging ALL Jews as usurers/cash-obsessed/cleverer than. I'm pretty bloody thankful I went to school with thousands of Jews, because they had in their favour a belief in the power of learning and education being a pathway to aspirations. Their parents were the best agitators for getting stuff done for everyone in my town that I've ever experienced.

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

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

So, has anybody got any idea why someone would say that Judaism is intolerant? (I'm not asking if any of you are racist, I'm just wondering if anyone has any examples or good guesses about purported Judaic intolerance... And I mean the religion, not the state or Isreal or somesuch)

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:21 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I was thinking that the idea of not wanting to spread "the good news", being a closed community pretty much marks you out as The Other, but certainly the other factors you point out seem a fair bit more convincing.

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Dave, you've already said it's intolerant of several things (like allowing you to use the car on a Friday). You also explained why this doesn't mean the same as 'intolerant' to you. I understand that, but 'intolerant' means different things to different people.

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

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. 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 (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

good point, what about forcible removal of non-jews and 'pioneer' settling though?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:35 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

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)

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.


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

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (10 years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (10 years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (10 years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

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.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

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.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

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

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (10 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

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.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (10 years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- 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?

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

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.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

Well, the hostility varies, for sure. But the propaganda persists, even in places with virtually no Jews! Or maybe especially in places with no Jews. And it really is global, isn't it? Is there any other minority group consistently maligned this way around the globe?

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

uh black people

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:25 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

oppression olympics not really necessary is it

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

skeptical that guy who does know who geert wilders is might not be expert in global racism he thinks he is

Sporkies Finalist (stevie), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:28 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Well it's hard to think of such a small minority group that is at the same time so visible and has a presence in so many countries. Like what would even be a comparison point, Bahai? There are persecuted Christian minorities in many places in the world but Christians on the whole are a pretty damn large group worldwide. Muslim minorities are persecuted in many places as well, and there's certainly plenty of anti-Muslim propaganda.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:28 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I've never heard of this Chinese anti-semitism personally btw. ime most Asian countries' populations don't even know what Jews are.

xxp

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:34 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I don't consider myself an expert in anything. I do consider this board more of a discussion, and not a debate. I learn things here all of the time. One of the first things I learned, many years ago, is that some people are just jerks. Including me, sometimes. But not always.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

The only thing I've ever read about in China is the flip of that "Asians are good at math" kind of racism, i.e. "Jews are good with money, how can we learn to emulate them." I find it mostly harmless.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:37 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It seems, yeah, largely based in ignorance, and not overt hatred. But there's still a number that believes the worst of the worst, like "18% thought they were “responsible for most of the world’s wars.”"

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

This one, from 2009, points out the curious, complicated lack of a religious basis in Asia for Jewish conspiracies:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/06/judaism-race

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:47 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

(I didn't google their authors, so apologies if they were penned by more right wing politicians I don't know.)

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:48 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

So my mistake.

No problem. The pinning of European anti-Semitism on its Muslim populations just makes me very queasy. I don't know how aware Americans of the line peddled by guys like Wilders and, before him, Pim Fortuyn and now very common amongst Islamophobes about Muslims representing a threat to liberal values - you know, all those hard won freedoms that the precursors to Wilders fought tooth and nail against.

FYI Macedonia (Tom D.), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:51 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

The problem with this "survey of anti-Semitic attitudes" business is that it's without context. If you ask Chinese people a list of targeted questions about attitudes toward Jews, you might get some negative answers, but if you're talking about what preoccupies people, it's going to be low on the list. I think a lot of people with "anti-Jewish" attitudes would probably fall into the category of this commenter:

Teacup

09 February 2009 10:15am

29

Is this from first hand experience? I can't speak for other countries, but Indians spend little time worrying about Jews per se and certainly don't go around spouting anti-Jewish stuff. Anti-Muslim, yes, anti-Jewish, no.. A great many are annoyed with the actions of the state of Israel, but that is like assuming that people were annoyed with the Bush administration because it was Christian.

However, the presence of the self-styled "Jewish state" and its actions, don't make good advertising.

Lets not confuse religion and politics.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Also the kind of questions that are asked often lead the responder to an "attitude."

"Do Jews have too much power?"
"Well, there do seem to be a lot of Jews in power now that you mention it, sure I guess so, why should one group have so much power?"

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:58 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

commenter otm

(a post I never thought I would make about anything lol)

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh, there are all sorts of ways one can get those results. But the 2009 thing I linked to gets into more detail, and more interesting detail, imo.

Pim Fortuyn

This dude I've heard of.

I don't think I pinned European anti-Semitism on its Muslim population, just saying that it preceded it, as well as Israel, so obviously stems from other stuff as well as the most obvious stuff. Which includes some Muslim anti-Semitism, but I don't think anyone can quantify exactly how much and where it comes from, at least not as easily as one can source Islamophobia, given the number of people in powerful, public positions who are pretty blatant about it.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 17:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i own some ellen willis collections but i've never read this piece before - i think it's very good:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/181449/willis-anti-anti-zionist

Mordy, Monday, 18 August 2014 04:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

That's my local Sainsburys. The Kosher food was there when I went in 30 minutes ago.

struwwelpeter capaldi (suzy), Monday, 18 August 2014 15:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

bc they put it back or what?

Mordy, Monday, 18 August 2014 15:32 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It said in the article they were putting it back. I think somebody screwed up and they knew they screwed up so they fixed it.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Monday, 18 August 2014 15:38 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

If they don't want to be targeted for being Jewish, maybe they should just stop being Jewish.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:22 (1 week ago) Permalink

temple U! this is my fucking backyard.

Mordy, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:23 (1 week ago) Permalink

I have Jewish family in Philly AND Australia.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:24 (1 week ago) Permalink

that Philly thing doesn't read like a straight-up hate crime to me, a pro-palestinian group confronted by a dude from a right-wing pro-israeli group and the fists/insults flew...? not exactly shocking.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:27 (1 week ago) Permalink

idk how reliable this is. the kid who got punched is a friend of a friend:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/temple-univ-jewish-student-punched-face-and-called-kike-anti-semitic-attack

Mordy, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:28 (1 week ago) Permalink

def an objective account there lol

Οὖτις, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:30 (1 week ago) Permalink

tbc nobody should be resorting to fists/insults. kids are stupid.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

He is a member of the Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi and a fellow with CAMERA, a right-wing pro-Israel media watchdog.

those guys are the fucking worst, i'm willing to bet that guy provoked his assailant.

I dunno. (amateurist), Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:40 (1 week ago) Permalink

of course, it takes two etc.

I dunno. (amateurist), Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

if he really wanted to provoke a response he should have just kidnapped one of them and set them on fire amirite

Οὖτις, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:42 (1 week ago) Permalink

hey a link to ben shapiro's website, that's great

goole, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:45 (1 week ago) Permalink

ugh Breitbart

Οὖτις, Thursday, 21 August 2014 20:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

Given that the guy was a "CAMERA on Campus fellow" I have to wonder if he was provoking them at least a bit on purpose.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Friday, 22 August 2014 17:41 (1 week ago) Permalink

Here's the *thing-I-just-can't-process-of-the-day*

http://972mag.com/nstt_feeditem/israelis-on-facebook-wish-death-for-holocaust-survivors-against-protective-edge/

Is this some kind of Sephardic-ashkenazic thing? Like do Jews from Arab countries more loudly profess their hate for Arabs and do they also have some kind of weird complex about not being of the group who went through the holocaust?

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Monday, 25 August 2014 17:13 (1 week ago) Permalink

ime, as a stereotype, sephardic jews hate arabs more than ashkenazi jews do

Mordy, Monday, 25 August 2014 17:19 (1 week ago) Permalink

where does that come from? bad relations with their neighbors prior to emigrating? Just a less politically correct/humanistic culture in general?

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Monday, 25 August 2014 17:24 (1 week ago) Permalink

idk, any explanation i gave would be speculation + it's likely overdetermined but i'm sure it has a lot to do w/ being forced to live as second class citizens in arab countries before immigration + the ultimate expulsion of sephardic jews from middle east countries

Mordy, Monday, 25 August 2014 17:26 (1 week ago) Permalink

Update 1pm IDT: Zara parent company Inditex told +972 the shirt was inspired by Classical Western films and that it is no longer available. The Israeli chapter of the company apologized more profusely, adding that it was decided to remove the offensive product from the shelves – and “exterminate” it.

Mordy, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:31 (5 days ago) Permalink

idk that looks like a Sherriff's badge to me

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:32 (5 days ago) Permalink

why it's on a striped shirt that is clearly not classically western in design is not clear

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:33 (5 days ago) Permalink

Mordy, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:35 (5 days ago) Permalink

fuck

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:21 (5 days ago) Permalink

The company has a whole history of troubling shirt designs I see in that npr link

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:42 (5 days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.