Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3436 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (12 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

I have a good friend who is a French speaking Jew from Alexandria, Egypt, and her family was kicked out of Alexandria in the 1940s, after the founding of Israel. in fact they were stateless for a while, and ended up in a refugee camp in the south of France, where she learned French, and then ended up, reluctantly, in Tel Aviv. nowadays she shuttles between Europe and Israel, but longs to be back in Egypt, which of course is impossible.

in fact I know a lot of French Jews with roots in North Africa but this friend I'm speaking of is the one who best fits the story of that article.

droit au butt (Euler), Tuesday, 23 February 2016 15:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

In 1969, Weinstock published “Zionism: False Messiah,” an anti-Zionist pamphlet (in French; an English translation came out a decade later) that quickly became the bible of anti-Israeli propaganda in France. Gradually, however, he says, he became aware of “the anti-Semitic nature of the blind assault on Israel. First, ‘the Zionists’ are condemned, then the ‘Zionist takeover’ of the media, and finally ‘Zionist world domination.’ When I was quoted, my criticism of the Palestinians, however minor, was always omitted. In the end, I understood that I had been used. My listeners took no interest whatsoever in me. For them, I was a Jewish alibi for their anti-Jewish posture.”

i'm always amazed when ppl come to this realization as tho it hadn't occurred to them before that they might be a fig leaf for less noble motivations.

Mordy, Tuesday, 23 February 2016 16:01 (2 months ago) Permalink

But I mean what are you supposed to do if you're an anti-Zionist Jew? Keep quiet about it because you know you're going to be a useful source of selective quotation by anti-Semites? I'm a Zionist as you know but I feel for people in that position. I feel like all you can do is say what you have to say and then loudly protest that the anti-Semites "know nothing of my work"

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 23 February 2016 16:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

I guess if you're a fervent anti-Zionist you should speak your truth, it's just odd to me that an otherwise bright person would not know immediately that they were being used as a token Jew. You might say "well, ppl are going to misuse my stand but I'm willing to take that risk," but to not understand this entire dynamic seems like a glaring blindspot. Especially when so often Jewish critics of Zionism are presented in this "As a Jew..." rhetoric, or in this modality of "one of the good Jews." Like don't they realize that the impact is painting the vast majority of Zionist (or Zionism sympathetic) Jews as "bad Jews" who can be dismissed and marginalized for the common good?

Mordy, Tuesday, 23 February 2016 16:30 (2 months ago) Permalink

spotted in the wild:

Outside my suburban PA train station someone posted fliers on all the telephone polls that ask people to "Research, Google, Youtube Khazar Jews, NWO, Rothschild Bloodline" for the sake of their children's souls.

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Monday, 29 February 2016 23:31 (2 months ago) Permalink

Disgusting. What station??

Mordy, Monday, 29 February 2016 23:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

Jenkintown

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Monday, 29 February 2016 23:57 (2 months ago) Permalink

i didn't realize you were so close to me! i grew up in elkins park! (i was actually in jenkintown a couple months ago to see a generator in Fox Pavilion (that I think is now just called Pavilion)).

Mordy, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 00:04 (2 months ago) Permalink

(obviously disappointing hearing about the posters there but - ugh, whatever - ppl are assholes)

Mordy, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 00:04 (2 months ago) Permalink

Coincidentally Ezra Pund lived in Jenkintown as a child

Blowout Coombes (President Keyes), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 00:14 (2 months ago) Permalink

what a fucking lunatic. why hasn't oberlin fired her yet?

Mordy, Saturday, 5 March 2016 15:27 (2 months ago) Permalink

Lol wat

Οὖτις, Saturday, 5 March 2016 15:33 (2 months ago) Permalink

it goes against the academic principles of the university to interfere with inquiries into the methods thru which the rothschild family control the world

Mordy, Saturday, 5 March 2016 15:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

slate: Compare Oberlin’s response with the recent firing of James Tracy, a tenured communications scholar, by Florida Atlantic University, related to declarations on his blog that the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, was really an elaborate government play for more gun control laws. (A termination letter sent to Tracy in January said that he was being terminated for failing to turn in outside employment or professional activity reforms in a timely manner, but the letter referenced activity on his blog and Tracy maintains his case is about free speech.)

Mordy, Saturday, 5 March 2016 15:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

Sounds like they make some great hires over there

Οὖτις, Saturday, 5 March 2016 15:58 (2 months ago) Permalink

has everyone here already read this james baldwin essay? i hadn't and it's v powerful (even if there are points i disagree with or have a different perspective on): https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-antisem.html - i really need to read more of his work his writing is so achingly beautiful

Mordy, Friday, 11 March 2016 20:38 (1 month ago) Permalink

I read it out of the Library of America James Baldwin collection while standing in the bookstore a while ago and was basically blown away, agree on achingly beautiful.

petulant dick master (silby), Thursday, 24 March 2016 00:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

One thing I am REALLY tired of in the whole zionism debate is hearing from world-racism-expert college students who say "Zionism's racism is also evidenced by its treatment of Mizrahi Jews." I am fine with accusing Israel of racism, but this particular statement displays no understanding or concern whatsoever for the people being used as a political football, who (1) are vast majority "zionist," and (2) who experience nothing close to the level of discrimination experienced by African Americans in this country -- intermarriage rates are very high and gaps in income and achievement are closing. It's much more comparable to something like lingering WASP prejudice against "ethnic" whites than it is to the kind of racism they think it supports.

human life won't become a cat (man alive), Friday, 25 March 2016 14:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

Not to mention that a lot of them experienced far greater discrimination in the countries they were forced out of.

human life won't become a cat (man alive), Friday, 25 March 2016 14:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

well written thoughtful piece about anti-semitism at stanford:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/07/on-gabriel-knight-and-what-anti-semitism-really-means/

Mordy, Thursday, 7 April 2016 19:28 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4639165,00.html

has this UN women's rights report been discussed here yet? A friend posted about it on FB and it was just WTF?

sarahell, Thursday, 7 April 2016 19:30 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

No not posted here. I had seen it but at this pt outrageous anti Israel bias from the UN is very dog bites man and I try not to be a broken record.

Mordy, Thursday, 7 April 2016 19:32 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

it's also biased against women, specifically, the women in countries that actually are dire and oppressive of women

sarahell, Thursday, 7 April 2016 19:34 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

oops --

Mordy, Saturday, 9 April 2016 21:09 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

:|

eyecrud (silby), Saturday, 9 April 2016 21:19 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

holy moly

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Saturday, 9 April 2016 21:49 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah, I think I might have posted about that place before. It is run by a chain that has a bunch of very odd theme restaurants in the city - one is dedicated to the Ukrainian nationalists who sided with Hitler to try to defeat Russia, one which actually sounds quite cool which is faux masonic and hidden in an apartment block and this one. They are all designed to reflect the history of Lviv in some way. There doesn't seem to be any overarching political animus behind it, it's all for joeks, but clearly both hugely offensive and reflective of a lot of the latent antisemitism and stereotypes that still remain in that part of the country. As reported, the trad Jewish food is apparently pretty good. Lviv is a great city but politically quite odd. It is supposedly the most European-focused part of the country but has very deep nationalist roots which, like a lot of nationalist roots in the region, often overlaps with strong antisemitic sentiment.

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Sunday, 10 April 2016 00:39 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

jfc i cannot handle that

wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 10 April 2016 02:52 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

the restaurant, i mean.

wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 10 April 2016 03:07 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

jfc could be a p good guaranteed-kosher chicken franchise

never had it so ogod (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 April 2016 09:39 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

ha!

wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 10 April 2016 16:52 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

a hopeful take on what the recent bernie anti-semitism moment means
http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2016/04/boos-and-cheers-from-bernies-harlem.html

Mordy, Sunday, 10 April 2016 19:23 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

translation of an excellent text posted by the Italian editorial collective Il Lato Cattivo in July 2014 that speaks to a lot of the issues of antisemitism + communism we've discussed above: https://thecharnelhouse.org/2016/04/29/letter-on-anti-zionism/

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 01:28 (4 days ago) Permalink

from the same blog: https://thecharnelhouse.org/2016/04/30/reflections-on-left-antisemitism/

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 01:31 (4 days ago) Permalink

(good looking bibliography at the top of that second one that i plan on delving into when i get some time)

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 01:31 (4 days ago) Permalink

this in particular from the letter:

Under the spur of the general restructuring of class relations from the seventies onwards, during the last forty years, capital development has made a clean sweep, and little or nothing was left from that story. After Second World War, the movement of support for the Third World was legitimated, among others, by the function of supplier of cheap raw materials of this part of the world; but through the two “oil crises” in 1973-1974 and 1978-1980, the restructuration completely destabilized the previous situation: the price of crude increased in an unprecedented manner, and in Europe one began to speak of nuclear power stations. Therefore, more fundamentally, came successively the intoxication by oil rent in Middle East (that improved Hamas’ cash flow through intervention of Saudi Arabia), the end of Arab nationalism and the rise of Islamism. At the same time, even the economical and social structure of Israeli state completely changed. “Zionism,” strictly speaking, was the protection and safeguarding of “Jewish labor,” either for Israeli capital, against international competition, or for the working class against the Palestinian proletarians: it was in short a special case of the post-1945 “Fordist compromise,” of rooting in a given national state of a fraction of capital. Zionism implied that a “left-wing” character be given to state and civil society. This is what Likud gradually liquidated, and the radical resizing of the role of the kibbutz demonstrates that. Conversely, out of a logical deduction, one understands that the slow erosion of the Palestinian area goes hand in hand with a major use of the Arab workforce. Yet the definition of Israel as “Zionist state” resists, and even in this semantic quid-pro-quo manifests itself the tragic nature of the present situation. To let out words like “Zionist” or “lobby,” etc., only serves — consciously or not — to surround the existence of Israel with a halo of intrigues, mystery, conspiracy, and exceptional character, of which it is not difficult to catch the subliminal message: Israelis, i.e. the Jews, are not like others. While the only secret in this whole story is the open secret of capital: competition, which opposes “those who are at the top” as well as “those who are at the bottom.”

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 01:40 (4 days ago) Permalink

A thing I was thinking just now: do Jews in America tend to have a Plan? Like, keeping passports up to date, looking into what European nationality they might be entitled to, wondering how they would get by in Vancouver or Mexico City…I'm thinking it's worth planning for, after I get earthquake preparedness squared away.

Sean, let me be clear (silby), Sunday, 1 May 2016 02:06 (4 days ago) Permalink

i don't know about a plan per se but i know a lot of jews who keep their passports up to date. generally speaking tho when this topic comes up in conversation - and i should mention here that i think it's a bit hysterical and imho the US is the safest place in the world for a Jew to live - no one talks about vancouver, europe or mexico city - they just assume they'd be fleeing to israel.

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 02:37 (4 days ago) Permalink

A thing I was thinking just now: do Jews in America tend to have a Plan? Like, keeping passports up to date, looking into what European nationality they might be entitled to, wondering how they would get by in Vancouver or Mexico City

In my circles (notably more secular than Mordy's but religiously involved / synagogue members etc.) I have never heard of such a thing in my life and anyone making such plans would be thought of as slightly kooky. On the other hand, I certainly know Israelis who are trying to figure out how workable it would be for them to move to the US.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Sunday, 1 May 2016 02:56 (4 days ago) Permalink

Yeah, the closest I can think is a friend in Texas who has started collecting guns and I want to say has a canon on his property now. But that's more Texas than Jew. I can't think of what would possibly drive me to Israel.

Josh in Chicago, Sunday, 1 May 2016 03:04 (4 days ago) Permalink

i should clarify that no one i know discusses it /seriously/ only in off-hand comments or as brief asides - it's the kind of thing that comes up when it seems like antisemitism in the diaspora is on the rise and conversations are happening about eg the french jewish community and then the jump to what if this happened here.

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 03:17 (4 days ago) Permalink

tom, you read this thread sometimes right? thought about posting it to uk thread but u kno
http://www.timesofisrael.com/hate-crimes-against-jews-sharply-increasing-in-britain-audit-finds/

The National Antisemitic Crime Audit from the non-governmental group Campaign Against Antisemitism said that nearly 1,000 incidents were reported in 2015, representing a 25.7% increase in anti-Jewish crimes on 2014, and making it the worse year on record.

Data collected from all of the country’s police forces showed that during 2014, UK police forces recorded 746 anti-Semitic crimes; that figure rose to 938 in 2015.

Violent crime jumped to 196 incidents, a 50.8% rise, in 2015 and accounted for 20.3% all crime against Jews, compared to just 126 incidents representing 16.9% of violent crimes the year before.

However, “despite the growth in antisemitic crime, police forces charged 7.2% fewer cases in 2015 than in 2014, meaning that only 13.6% of cases resulted in charges being brought,” the CAA said. In total 138 charges were brought in 2014, but just 128 in 2015.

Mordy, Sunday, 1 May 2016 18:16 (4 days ago) Permalink

without following this controversy very closely, this article seemed reasonable:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/adam-ramsay/multiple-truths-of-labour-antisemitism-story

goole, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 16:35 (2 days ago) Permalink

Was just reading that. v dismissive of the controversies and polls, mostly agree in the wider context as an attack on the current Labour leadership although Livingstone should've kept his mouth shut and not stepped in.

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 16:37 (2 days ago) Permalink

Also quite a few schoolboy errors eg. Diane Abbott is a shadow cabinet minister, not a 'spokesperson'.

jedi slimane (suzy), Tuesday, 3 May 2016 16:39 (2 days ago) Permalink

Sorry - this is the piece I was talking about, from the open democracy too:

https://opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 17:01 (2 days ago) Permalink


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