Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2584 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

As I get older I feel like there are fewer and fewer things I like about France

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 02:08 (1 week ago) Permalink

I realize I'm not speaking from Europe here, but it seems to me like the classic unemployment/access/frustration argument misapprehends important parts of the dynamic here. The countries from which most muslims emigrate have enormously high levels of anti-Jewish attitudes, in fact, far worse than among muslim communities in europe -- those countries have virtually no Jews and their attitudes result from a combination of anti-Israel feeling, demagoguery, lack of exposure to actual Jews, and the persistence of anti-semitic propaganda like Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If anything, moving to europe where there are actual Jews and where education is different seems to moderate anti-Jewish feeling, although it remains somewhat high. I can also understand why a person who felt personally tied to Palestine could wind up feeling angry at Jews, especially when a lot of Jews do support Israel. But as I said, these things can take a life of their own. Yes, giving muslims greater access to mainstream society will help, no it's not the whole problem. No, I don't think we're anywhere close to another holocaust, yes, I would be afraid to send my daughter to the Jewish daycare center down the block if there had just been mobs marching through my neighborhood shouting "gas the Jews."

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 02:11 (1 week ago) Permalink

Morocco and Tunisia don't have enormously high levels of anti-Jewish attitudes, in the case of those two countries lots of french jews (dominantly sephardic) still have intense connections to Morocco and Tunisia, most of the time even bigger than Israel itself and they travel back and forth without fear. Obviously, it is a bit different in the case of Algeria. Also, immigrants from the same countries come to Quebec every day and we are a million miles away from hearing such chants in the streets.

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 02:27 (1 week ago) Permalink

And the situation in every european state is different. So no.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 02:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

And I'm not trying to make some facile comparison. I'm trying to explain, that not a week goes by without something anti-muslim happening in Denmark, from muslim women being harrassed in the streets to politicians tweeting that muslims are like Hitler and should be stopped the same way, to insane legislation being proposed (just this week the biggest party announced that they will pull Denmark out of any international convention that would get in the way of dealing with immigrants. No protests on the other side. Also, conditions for asylum seekers, which is already pretty dreadful, should be worsened until we get significantly fewer asylum seekers). So to be told by Americans that our problem is in fact with anti-semitism is sorta frustrating. Because it's not. France is different, but Europe is more than France.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 02:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

And I get why you guys - I'm guessing a lot of you are Jewish? - are focusing more on anti-semitism than anti-arabism, but if you were muslims living in Denmark, and read and wrote so much about the conditions of muslims in other parts of the world, politicians would lament that you were only interested in people of your own faith and that it pointed to bad integration. Because Denmark has a massive problem with discrimination of muslims.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 03:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

I understand this and you are otm. I am just saying that in France, islamophobia and anti-semitism are two sides of the same coin, that it's one big problem.

Also I'd like to say that all the jews I know in France feel very safe, way safer than most arabs.

Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 03:11 (1 week ago) Permalink

Am I right, though, that a large contingent of immigrant groups in Europe are also Muslim? It seems like the anti-Muslim sentiment stems at least in part from strong strains of anti-immigrant sentiment. The anti-semitism, on the other hand, obviously preceded Israel and focused on an indigenous (albeit still "other") group; one of the main reasons Israel exists is that there was no other country for the Jews to "go back" to. (Interestingly, Denmark specifically had one of the best relationships with its (admitedelly small) Jewish population c. WWII.)

The anti-Muslim sentiment may also stem in part from the (relative) proliferation of Islamic extremism throughout Europe, too, if not extremists in deed then certainly extreme in viewpoint and political disposition. (Denmark obviously had that whole cartoonist incident). I think a lot of Western European countries are a bit torn when it comes to their Muslim populations, who indeed are often ghetto-ized, sometimes by choice but sometimes by default, with no effort at integration (again, sometimes by choice, sometimes not).

Judaism, as a culture and as a religion, can I think be pretty subtle to outsiders, My sister, who is nominally Jewish but not religious, lives in England, and says, purely anecdotally, that a lot of people she encounters can't process how somehow can be both Jewish and not religious. Then again, she also tells me about Jewish friends who have Christmas trees, because it's so totally secular that everyone has Christmas trees, to which I cry BS. There are clearly social pressures at work to default Christian, no matter how many people claim to be secular. I've seen the same thing with family in Australia. Religion plays such a small public role there, and yet, every kid is expected to dress in red and green and participate in the annual school Christmas show. Because, you know, doesn't mean anything, secular, etc.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 13:23 (1 week ago) Permalink

"It seems like the anti-Muslim sentiment stems at least in part from strong strains of anti-immigrant sentiment. The anti-semitism, on the other hand, obviously preceded Israel and focused on an indigenous (albeit still "other") group"

in an old piece reposted recently Badiou addresses this:

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1676-anti-semitism-real-and-imagined-by-alain-badiou-and-eric-hazan

Before the War, the majority of Jews were foreigners who had arrived from Poland, Lithuania or Romania, who spoke Yiddish and belonged to the poorest section of the working class: they were the Arabs and Africans of their day. Nowadays, Jews are pretty well 'integrated', and this kind of anti-Semitism and racism finds other targets.

This anti-Semitism of the 1930s was, in fact, a component of the same anti-popular sentiment that still stigmatizes the most recent arrivals in France. In the nineteenth century, it was the Auvergnats, Bretons, Italians and Savoyards; after the 1914–18 War, the Poles, the Jews from the east, the Spanish; after the Second World War, the Portuguese and, with a strong additional racist component which was exacerbated by the colonial wars, the Algerians and Moroccans – today the Malians and Congolese. Without grasping this continuity it is impossible to understand either pre-WWII anti-Semitism or the present situation. This is an element which is still able to resurge, even at the state level, with a view to stoking up resentment against a poor section of the population: a very classic manoeuvre of anti-popular division, which struck a large section of Jews before the Second World War and is practised today against those people called 'immigrants'

"The anti-Muslim sentiment may also stem in part from the (relative) proliferation of Islamic extremism throughout Europe, too, if not extremists in deed then certainly extreme in viewpoint and political disposition."

Or...it could do with racism or xenophobia?!

"I think a lot of Western European countries are a bit torn when it comes to their Muslim populations, who indeed are often ghetto-ized, sometimes by choice but sometimes by default, with no effort at integration (again, sometimes by choice, sometimes not)."

Interesting that you place "choice" first while the influence of state policy (or "default" as you call it) is secondary, almost an afterthought. I think you have that relationship backwards, and the effect is that it seems like you think Islamophobia is at least ~partly~ justified - after all, so many of them hold Islamists views and didn't make an effort to integrate into European liberal democracy!

ey, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 14:17 (1 week ago) Permalink

Like Christmas has anything to do with Christianity... maybe in America it still does.(xp)

FYI Macedonia (Tom D.), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 14:19 (1 week ago) Permalink

"The anti-Muslim sentiment may also stem in part from the (relative) proliferation of Islamic extremism throughout Europe, too, if not extremists in deed then certainly extreme in viewpoint and political disposition.

This reads like Geert Wilders tbh. Proliferation?

FYI Macedonia (Tom D.), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 14:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

Like Christmas has anything to do with Christianity... maybe in America it still does.

Yeah, in America it still does. Who gets inflamed when somebody writes a "Happy Holidays" card in order to be inclusive of Jews? Not protectors of America's secular civic culture, I can tell you that.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 14:37 (1 week ago) Permalink

The thing about immigrants vs muslims is pretty interesting. The whole reason the right wants to withdraw Denmark from the international conventions is because those conventions will only allow Denmark to make laws hurting immigrants as a whole, while they want to specify that muslims should be treated worse than other. Like, there is a law limiting marriages to foreigners, and everyone knows people who has had to move to Sweden as a result (my friend married a Russian, and my cousin with dual Danish-Japanese citizenship couldn't get her family to the country, for instance) The law was controversial as a result, so now the right just wants to limit the ability to marry a muslim. There's a constant effort to make Denmark more attractive to the high-earning, western immigrant, so the question is always how to do this while still being tough on muslims.

And it's a bit misleading to call Jews 'indigenous' to Denmark. They were obviously immigrants as well (as was pretty much everyone, I'm descended from German immigrants as well) and their integration really began in 1814, where they were acknowledged as being fully Danish citizens by the king, on the condition that they stopped wearing Jewish clothing, speaking yiddish, etc. Which really is early, Norway forbid Jewish immigration at around the same time, so...

Denmark definitely has a problem with islamism, kids fighting in Syria, foiled terrorist attacks, etc, but while most islamophobes would justify their racism that way, it shouldn't be taken at face value. Again, it's why it annoys me that all this talk about anti-semitic muslims is accepted at face value by foreigners: It's part of a story about 'extremist muslims' which is used to justify racist discrimination. When you get down to it, most of the non-danish behaviour that muslims do is stuff like not eating pork (which isn't a problem when Jews do the same), being anti-gay (which isn't a problem when christians think the same) etc.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:02 (1 week ago) Permalink

Like, there is a law limiting marriages to foreigners, and everyone knows people who has had to move to Sweden as a result (my friend married a Russian, and my cousin with dual Danish-Japanese citizenship couldn't get her family to the country, for instance)

whoa, did not know this.

Sporkies Finalist (stevie), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:13 (1 week ago) Permalink

also did not know that

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:15 (1 week ago) Permalink

It's not an outright ban (once your older than 24), but it can be tough to live up to the rules.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:22 (1 week ago) Permalink

there's a growing strand of thought on the left here in france that france should turn its attention more to the maghreb and west africa, and less to the_west, since linguistically the french have an edge in africa that other european nations don't have. this would concomitantly involve stronger attempts at integrating french people of ancestry from those places into french civil life. I've been ~thinking about that~ while watching the gaza protests in the last month (saw a little one here in marseille, & heard one a bigger one from a distance across the jardin de luxembourg in paris). thinking : how would this turn, if successful (obv lol @ that, it's the left in france), affect anti-semitism here? I've been walking with a friend in a luxe quarter in paris, on the rue de seine, with an orthodox american friend who was dressed like it; and he got verbally abused by a guy on the street; at least in paris, anti-semitism is an overt thing. (dunno about marseille yet, though we live close enough to the center that I'll find out soon enough I'm sure.)

Euler, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:32 (1 week ago) Permalink

I think France especially has a mistrust of anyone who holds themselves out as anything other than 100% secular and culturally French, hence there also being the headscarf ban. A family member who lived there for a while said that even as a purely secular Jew she had arguments with educated people about why she maintained any Jewish identity at all, something that Americans just don't seem to do, if only out of our weird aversion to discussing religion or politics publicly. So there's that *and* there's anti-Jewish sentiment in the muslim community. Being a minority group never ceases to be problematic, even when prosperity brings periods of safety, and the liberal philosophical position against "all" discrimination never seems to prevent people from considering some forms of discrimination as more worthy than others. It seems like Frederik's point is that right now Europe is still treating anti-Semitism as more worthy than anti-Islamism, which is probably true. euler is pointing out that a country can pretty easily flip the two if it becomes politically expedient.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 15:48 (1 week ago) Permalink

xpost I in no way intended to justify islamophobia, just saying that I see where it sometimes comes from. That is, xenophobia (which I've always thought of as interchangeable with anti-immigrant). And part of my observation was based in misconceptions I have from an American vantage. That is, I was thinking of "Europe" as a whole, and didn't really consider (though I suppose should have) movement from Germany or Poland to Denmark, or Denmark to Sweden, as immigration, writ large. I admit I never thought of movement within Europe as "immigration," in the more dramatic, say, Africa to Europe, or Mexico to America sense, though of course it is.

Anti-semitism, though, frequently comes from, imo, a deeper place, whether explicitly couched in ancient church doctrine (Jews killed Jesus), or the spread of propaganda (Protocols, etc.). Many, too many, people just don't like Muslims, or blame some Muslims for what other Muslims do elsewhere, or aren't comfortable around Muslims. But Jew hatred seems different to me, going beyond prejudice. Dunno.

xposting I don't know who Geert Wilders is, but I assume he's bad and he was invoked as a criticism. To clarify again, I mean proliferation in the sense that I read stories of so-called "radical mosques," or "radical Imams" coming out of England, France, Denmark, wherever. It's once again my ignorant American location working against me. "Radical" mosques would not even stand a chance in a country as Islamophobic as ours. "Moderate" mosques have a hard enough time. So when I read about the former's existence at all throughout Europe, yeah, the word proliferation came to mind. Just that they're there at all, and relatively new, though of course not in high numbers. So my mistake.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:01 (1 week ago) Permalink

Was just reading a book about the Beatles, btw, and there are a couple of paragraphs about the band's passive anti-Semitism, or at least insensitivity, early on, c. 1962, especially around Brian Epstein. Lots of stuff about money, or him not supposed to work on Saturday, or bacon jokes, mostly the band's ignorance and immaturity at work. But still.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:05 (1 week ago) Permalink

I don't know who Geert Wilders is

There is this thing called Google.

Lennon made some pretty savage anti-semitic digs at Epstein while he was alive that seemed more the work of Lennon's misanthropy and general vileness than ignorance or immaturity. Didn't he tell Epstein that he should title his autobiography 'Queer Jew'?

Sporkies Finalist (stevie), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:07 (1 week ago) Permalink

I never really bought the "Jew hatred is different and inexplicable" argument -- I see it as a combination of religious enmity, mistrust of a "mysterious" minority group, fear, resentment, all the stuff that usually goes into a prejudice. Obviously it has its unique blend of these elements based on particularities of the situation. It's not exactly identical to American racism against blacks, or islamophobia, but it doesn't strike me as a singular phenomenon any more than any other hatred is.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:08 (1 week ago) Permalink

Who are these people? Why are they different from us? Why don't they want to be like us? What are they doing and saying behind closed doors, when we're not around? Why are they successful? What are their secrets? Why don't they accept the truth of our religion? Maybe they secretly want to destroy us. Etc.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:09 (1 week ago) Permalink

I think hatred in and of itself is the basis of all this. I just can't think of many other groups who have been the targets of such specific and prolific propaganda for centuries.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:09 (1 week ago) Permalink

Like, throughout Europe, Russia, America, China, Africa, anti-Semitism looks largely the same, based on the same lies and prejudices. Lots of horrible hatred is regional, or between two groups. Anti-Semitism always seems bigger than that.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:11 (1 week ago) Permalink

Josh I don't think that's actually true. You might superficially find some of the same stereotypes in China, for example, but you wouldn't find the same hostile feeling toward Jewish people as in, say, Tunisia.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:15 (1 week 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 (1 week ago) Permalink

uh black people

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:25 (1 week ago) Permalink

oppression olympics not really necessary is it

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:26 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (1 week ago) Permalink

commenter otm

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

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 13 August 2014 16:59 (1 week 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 (1 week 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 (3 days 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 (3 days ago) Permalink

bc they put it back or what?

Mordy, Monday, 18 August 2014 15:32 (3 days 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 (3 days ago) Permalink


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