Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3689 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve years ago) Permalink

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

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

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

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

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

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

That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

yes, I agree.

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

friends on fb are comparing his views on Zionism/Israel to those of Eichmann

sarahell, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:13 (three weeks ago) Permalink

afaik bannon has never sought to export all american jews to israel, tho that is a not unknown opinion on the far white supremacist right. i think anyway the comparison belies a categorical confusion bc i'm assuming it comes from the rabidly pro-Likud (and Israeli right) line of Briebart. but i see that as being more about Israel as a religious outpost of Western culture on the front lines of the war against Islam - not as a pragmatic solution to how to get rid of your Jews.

Mordy, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i'm just assuming that was the comparison and not that bannon is in the middle of designing an industrial genocide state

Mordy, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Bannon is definitely designing a state to destroy its "internal enemies" whoever he may perceive them to be. You can count on that.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:22 (three weeks ago) Permalink

if you're going to go for nazi comparisons doesn't goebbels make a lot more sense?

Mordy, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:27 (three weeks ago) Permalink

goebbels didn't get a chance to testify to expand on his views on Zionism

sarahell, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/798639101410824192

Alan Dershowitz on MSNBC right now says evidence bannon is antisemite is not there, then says Hamas would cheer if Ellison made DNC chief

goole, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:45 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i don't know if it's encouraging or depressing that a circumstantial charge antisemitism might bring bannon down but plenty of evidence he's a total pig to everyone else has no valence at all

goole, Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:46 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Like Trump, he courts antisemitism to boost his power, so it almost doesn't matter if he is one.

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Tuesday, 15 November 2016 22:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

otm. it doesn't matter what he "truly" believes when he runs a white suprematist website.

Treeship, Wednesday, 16 November 2016 04:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

shitbag cunning prizes plausible deniability

goole, Wednesday, 16 November 2016 16:46 (three weeks ago) Permalink

fwiw i don't think this is how an anti-semite talks or conceptualizes Judaism or Jewishness:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.jjb1ZYaGW#.jfEKjVbQl

Mordy, Thursday, 17 November 2016 16:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

There's been an exchange of articles and letters in the morning star (yeah, yeah, I know) about anti semitism in the Soviet Union. Wasn't sure if anyone saw it - I'm at the pub so I can't check if it's in their site. I have today's if anyone is interested. I was happy that the letter I read was saying that it's absurd to insist anti-semitism didn't exist in the ussr - but then I notice the letter above it claiming that Stalin never entertained an anti-Semitic thought, and neither did any official soviet actions.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Saturday, 26 November 2016 19:08 (one week ago) Permalink

obv an insane claim even if jews weren't his target early on they become one later, esp in the immediate post-trotsky era when he was cleaning house. from the kotkin:

Orjonikidize engaged in negotiations over the disposition of the highest-profile Trotskyites who sought to continue working in some capacity, but Stalin soon scattered them into internal exile.303 Whereas in the politburo back in mid-1924, Great Russians accounted for 46 percent, with a third having been Jews and the remaining three a Pole, Latvian, and Georgian, now the politburo became two-thirds Russian (and would retain a Russian majority thereafter).304 The talk around the congress was that “Moses had taken the Jews out of Egypt, and Stalin took them out of the Central Committee.”305

and then infamously right before his death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_plot

of note - my great aunt for whom my youngest daughter is named used to smuggle siddurim and jewish ritual items into the USSR for Chabad since those items were otherwise banned. and of course religion of any kind was heavily cracked down upon, but particularly among chassidim whose practice didn't allow for much hiding. the previous rebbe of lubavitch in particular was targeted hard by the Yevsektsiya (this was primarily communist jews oppressing religious jews) and he wrote about it in a really amazing work that has been translated into english and can be read - it looks like in full - here: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2994/jewish/The-Rebbes-Prison-Diary.htm

Nachmanson laughed sardonically, with a mixture of pleasure and vengeance. I saw then that I was dealing with a totally different person. This was not the Nachmanson who was in my apartment, nor the man in the courtyard. This was a G.P.U. official, whose primary task was to frighten the prisoners, to confuse them and render them submissive -- ultimately to extract confessions and admissions about imaginary events.

At that moment I recollected the text in Reishit Chachmah at the beginning of the Tractate Geihinom: "It is written, 'Who can stand before His anger? And who can be upright before the fierceness of His wrath?' Rav Zeira commented, citing the verse from Proverbs, 'The leech has two daughters who cry out, Give, give.' Rabbi Elazar commented further, 'Two groups of angels stand at the gates of Geihinom and cry, Give, give, bring, bring.'"

We advanced a few more steps. Nachmanson opened the door to the corridor of the administrative division. He whistled, signalling to one of the guards, "Take this citizen," he ordered, handed him a paper, and said, "Here are his documents. Escort him to the administrative office and give this to official X."

He turned to me laughing, "Now you will begin to understand where you are." Even before he had finished the sentence, he hastened to descend and run after Lulav, who had already gone down. They were obviously in haste to accomplish important tasks. Apparently their night's work was still incomplete.

The guard lead me and indicated with his finger that I should walk the length of the corridor to the wide open door. He told me that I would then be given a questionnaire by one of the secretaries and that I should answer all the questions in writing.

This corridor was a long room, more than 150 feet long and twelve feet wide. On both sides there were many closed office doors, and at every 30 feet was a small burning candle suspended from the ceiling. Along the length of the room stood ten or twelve armed guards, each armed with a Cossack pike at his back, a polished sword in his left hand, and a rifle in his right. They stood like marble pillars, unmoving, yet their eyes attentively surveyed the entire area.

The dreadful, bizarre scene would inevitably frighten any normal person, who could not begin to comprehend the reason for the elaborate display of weaponry and the intended targets of these instruments of destruction. Indeed, where could people be found so callous and corrupt as to be capable of wielding such weapons? Could a person be such a wild animal that such things must be used to tame him?

The enveloping silence, the darkness, the blackness of the walls, the small candles, the malevolent statue-like soldiers with massive powerful figures, their height, the broadness of their shoulders, the harsh outline of their features, their uniforms of stark red and black, the excessive display of weaponry-pike, sword, rifle -- all merged into one composite image that terrified the eye of the beholder and made the heart shudder.

Through the two rows of soldiers in the frightening dimness and in death-like stillness, I walked to the end of the corridor. In my mind the question arose, "Where am I going and for what purpose? What is required of me and how will this all end?" As if in internal dialogue with my soul, I responded clearly, excluding all doubt: "I shall shortly arrive at the open door, exactly as the guard told me. Did he not give me clear instructions that I must write out the answers to the questionnaire?

"And what then? Later, surely Nachmanson's promise will be fulfilled, that I will be brought to the place where one speaks willingly or unwillingly."

lots of anti-Zionism came out of the USSR as well - moishe postone who i've linked to a number of times in this thread discusses that facet at length.

Mordy, Saturday, 26 November 2016 22:33 (one week ago) Permalink

@ggreenwald
Bipartisan Senate bill to formally define unfair & excessive criticism of Israel -whatever that is - as AntiSemitism

https://www.casey.senate.gov/newsroom/releases/with-attacks-on-the-rise-sens-casey-and-scott-introduce-bipartisan-anti-semitism-awareness-act

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:38 (one week ago) Permalink

The State Department’s definition, shared by the European Union, states, “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Examples include, among other things:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
Demonizing Israel by blaming it for all inter-religious or political tensions
Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation

Greenwald is too smart to not know that this comes originally from the State Dept: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm - and imo is entirely reasonable especially since it concludes with "This act is not meant to infringe on any individual right protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Greenwald is a bad person and you need to start subjecting his comments to far more rigor than you're used to, Dr Morbius.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:42 (one week ago) Permalink

I don't like the fourth one because it's so vague and open and applies solely to a state in its formal capacity as a state -- aren't we judging nations by "double standards" p much all the time?

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:44 (one week ago) Permalink

this is very clearly a Don't Criticize Our Apartheid Ally bill, and I don't need GG to tell me that.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:48 (one week ago) Permalink

Well, it's repeating itself - a double standard is any standard that you wouldn't apply (without relevant reason) to comparable thing.

Andrew Farrell, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:48 (one week ago) Permalink

it's vague, I agree, but when unpacked:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations

this seems fairly reasonable. if you condemned Israel for bombing Gaza in 2014 but don't have a word to say about Syria then it's probably not the war crimes that bother you but the [Jewish] people committing them.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:49 (one week ago) Permalink

Is Syria a democratic nation now?

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:50 (one week ago) Permalink

this is very clearly a Don't Criticize Our Apartheid Ally bill, and I don't need GG to tell me that.

If you have a critique to make and you don't need GG to tell you it, then make it yourself. There are actual anti-BDS bills in various States (the first one in the country coming from our new liaison to the UN). This is a restatement of policy that has already existed from the State Department for years now and has no actual legal consequences.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:51 (one week ago) Permalink

So it's okay to commit war crimes as long as you're not a democracy? xp

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:51 (one week ago) Permalink

Well obviously

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:52 (one week ago) Permalink

No I was just saying that criticizing Israel and not Syria is not a good example of the behaviour this terrible definition of anti-semtism is trying to decry

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:54 (one week ago) Permalink

A recent FBI crime report notes that 58.2 percent of religiously-motivated hate crimes were due to the offender’s anti-Jewish leanings, and the Anti-Defamation League found that the number of anti-Semitic attacks at colleges and universities doubled in 2015. Currently, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights has stated they will not tolerate incidents such as these, but has not issued firm guidance on what constitutes anti-Semitism. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would codify the definition as one adopted by the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.

this is really the key. in addition to the [controversial] Israel stuff that GG and Dr Morbius choose (for some strange reason) decide to focus on, this is really about codifying the State guidelines for the DOE. The State guidelines included guidance regarding Israel, but primarily is regarding domestic hate crimes committed against Jews like the ones mentioned in this press release over the last few weeks which were predominately (entirely?) directed at American Jews qua Jews and had nothing to do with Zionism or Israel. Glenn Greenwald is a literal piece of shit that he looked at this and decided it was good fodder to just attack Israel again, despite it being secondary and despite it coming directly from a pre-existing State definition.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 16:55 (one week ago) Permalink

(for some strange reason)

say what you mean

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:02 (one week ago) Permalink

i've said it many times in the past and feel no compunction about saying it again. in addition to explicitly prejudiced comments that you've made about jews among other marginalized groups your continued fixation on israel as one of your predominant areas of interest (despite your constant demonstration of superficial knowledge regarding it) provides more evidence that you're a bigot.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:04 (one week ago) Permalink

Something I expect to hear from Z****** bigots. Jimmy Carter guilty too?

You don't know anything about me and Jews. Not a thing.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:07 (one week ago) Permalink

if you were a jew, or a palestinian, or even demonstrated even a small level of actual interest in the middle east or israel that go beyond rote condemnation, or demonstrated a similar issue in any other foreign country besides israel, i might be more inclined to treat your occasional outbursts as coming from a legitimate position of interest. instead you only pipe up to give knee-jerk condemnations, frequently citing the same 2 or 3 mindless twitter commentators in lieu of your own statements. you seem to know nothing about israel outside your trendy pejoratives (apartheid! genocidal! etc), and appear to give little attention to any other country in the world except maybe your own. so why the interest in israel particularly? i think it's pretty obvious.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:08 (one week ago) Permalink

And stop lying about these "explicitly prejudiced comments," as difficult as it must be. xp

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:09 (one week ago) Permalink

Jimmy Carter has many of his own issues including that he preached supersessionism and classical antisemitic positions for many years even before he got into the Israel criticism business. It's still quite chutzpadik to compare yourself to him. He knows plenty about Israel and helped negotiate one of the country's most important treaties. You appear to know nothing about Israel except that Zionists are bad and oppress Palestinians. Demonstrate I'm wrong. Show me comments you've made on Israel that are not just condemnations. Surely if your interest in not simply bigoted you would have topics of note that concern you that are not simply negative.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:10 (one week ago) Permalink

Oh gmafb everyone here knows what I'm referring to. Don't make me go dig it up. xp

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:11 (one week ago) Permalink

I let you and your vast stores of knowledge take care of the praise.

This is pointless and fatigiung for everyone else. Ta.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:12 (one week ago) Permalink

everyone here knows what I'm referring to.

You know who I don't like? Self-absorbed, bigoted, hateful fundamentralists from every religion.

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:14 (one week ago) Permalink

Actually I think this is an important conversation. Explain to me how my understanding of your participation on this topic on this board is wrong. How is it anything but just pathetic Jew-baiting? You clearly don't know shit about Jews, Judaism, or Israel. Your only comments on the topic are negative, and like I pointed out, often explicitly bigoted. If you don't think you're a bigot maybe consider that the evidence to the contrary suggests that you don't even know your own mind. And btw don't think anyone hasn't noticed that Jews aren't your only topic. I've also seen you make sexism and racist remarks as well. You're not a very nice or good person and you should either work on becoming a better one or stop taking offense when people notice.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:15 (one week ago) Permalink

*thread turns into blurry dust-cloud a la Peanuts*

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:15 (one week ago) Permalink

my mind is not what i put on this board, you goddamn maniacal fuckface. buhbye

xp

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:22 (one week ago) Permalink

Mindlessness isn't an excuse for bigotry, though it's often an explanation for it.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:24 (one week ago) Permalink

or "God said this was my apartment 5000 years ago"

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:27 (one week ago) Permalink

You clearly know practically nothing about Judaism, Zionism or Israel. You certainly don't know anything about the ideological foundations of Zionism if you think it has anything to do with promises from the Bible.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:29 (one week ago) Permalink

At the very least show a little humility by learning about the topics before pontificating about them. Not being a jackass should take moral precedence over not embarrassing yourself with your ignorance, but if the latter turns out to be a bigger motivator for you then I suggest you embrace it.

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:31 (one week ago) Permalink

On a much more relevant note, Mosaic Magazine just translated for the first time a Jabotinsky article from 1911 on antisemitism:

http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2016/11/no-apologies-how-to-respond-to-slander-of-israel-and-jews/

Mordy, Thursday, 1 December 2016 17:50 (one week ago) Permalink

Mordy OTM. I actually like the doc, but he's wrong here.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:43 (one week ago) Permalink

That (State Dept) definition, from a 2010 memo, includes as examples of anti-Semitism “delegitimizing” Israel, “demonizing” Israel, “applying double standards” to Israel, and “focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.”

Critics have pointed out that those are political — not racist — positions, shared by a significant number of Jews, and qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

According to the draft, the bill does not adopt the definition as a formal legal standard, it only directs the State Department to “take into consideration” the definition when investigating schools for anti-Semitic discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act....

Jewish groups opposed to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank were quick to denounce the bill.

“Instead of fighting the anti-Semitism entering the White House, this bill will go after 19-year-old students carrying protest signs against human rights abuses,” said Tallie Ben Daniel, academic program manager for Jewish Voice for Peace, in a statement. “This is not how to fight anti-Semitism, this is a recipe for restricting civil liberties like the right to criticize a government for its policies.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/senate-responds-to-post-trump-anti-semitism-by-targeting-students-who-criticize-israel/

Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Friday, 2 December 2016 18:14 (one week ago) Permalink

Critics have pointed out that those are political — not racist — positions, shared by a significant number of Jews, and qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

According to the draft, the bill does not adopt the definition as a formal legal standard, it only directs the State Department to “take into consideration” the definition when investigating schools for anti-Semitic discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act....

so what is wrong with greenwald? is he disingenuous or a moron?

Mordy, Friday, 2 December 2016 18:29 (one week ago) Permalink

You can be both.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Friday, 2 December 2016 20:26 (one week ago) Permalink


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