Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3127 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

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

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (11 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (11 years ago) Permalink

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 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 (11 years ago) Permalink

Well, Israel/Palestine is the defining issue of our times.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 6 March 2015 15:55 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Or the end times, depending.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 6 March 2015 15:55 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

PS I have no problem with individually chosen boycotts.

I have a problem with academics voting for institutional boycotts (affecting everyone in a university or organization, whether they agree or not).

drash, Friday, 6 March 2015 16:06 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

lol @ this: "It should be pointed out that the four students who opposed Ms. Beyda were Fabienne Roth, from Switzerland, Negeen Sadeghi-Movahed, an Iranian-American, Manjot Singh, a Sikh, and Sofia Moreno Haq, a member of the Muslim Student Association."

Mordy, Friday, 6 March 2015 16:18 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Hey, I don't want to make assumptions. But I will say I suspect her Swiss nationality may be impairing her impartiality. They should kick her out.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 6 March 2015 16:19 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"Ms. Roth, if the U.S. went to war with Switzerland ... what side would you be on?"

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 6 March 2015 16:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I think of course a person active in Hillel might possibly have a "bias" about Israel, but so might a person in a Muslim student org, or any other student for that matter. Maybe I don't understand what a university student council judicial committee does, but I don't really understand what a position on Israel would have to do with anything.

― five six and (man alive), Friday, 6 March 2015 15:38 (33 minutes ago) Permalink

issues related to BDS have previously come up before the student judicial board. recently, some student gov't leaders were given all-expenses-paid trips to israel by AJC and ADL, which in the former case was designed explicitly for American-Jewish campus leaders to help fight BDS efforts. a petition was filed (by members of a pro-Palestine student org) with the judicial board saying that the two Jewish student gov't leaders had violated the ethics rules concerning student gov't by accepting these free trips. i actually think they may have had a point (note: it helps if you read UCLA's ethical code for student gov't).

so that issue was almost certainly lurking in the BG -- unstated -- in this whole current issue. that doesn't make the line of questioning any less disgusting. having opinions—much less being of a certain religious/ethnic group—can't possibly be a disqualification for the student judicial board. if so, it would be a board with no members.

disgusted by the number of folks online who want to explain away what seems to me a textbook case of anti-semitism, admittedly among people who would be loathe to identify as anti-semites (but who would?).

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 16:21 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"roth" is often a jewish name; it's very possible that student was jewish. doesn't make it any better.

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 16:22 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"having opinions—much less being of a certain religious/ethnic group—can't possibly be a disqualification for the student judicial board" <<<< a lot of the defenses seem to miss this point. even if she was pro-Israel, having a political opinion that differs from the majority opinion cannot be a disqualification for a judicial board esp on an issue that has 0% to do w/ the life of a UCLA student.

Mordy, Friday, 6 March 2015 16:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

well, like i mention above, i'm sure that the free-Israel-trip issue, which /had/ come up before the student judicial board, was in the back of the members' minds. so in a broad sense, the issue of BDS is "relevant" to the judicial board. but the idea that she could not impartially judge a possible ethics violation b/c of her ethic background/group affiliation is (we all seem to agree) gross, just as it would be gross if they had questioned a member of a pro-Palestine group whether her Arab or Muslim identity would get in the way of her ability to adjudicate impartially.

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 16:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"roth" is often a jewish name; it's very possible that student was jewish. doesn't make it any better.

Are there many Jews in Switzerland? I know plenty money/gold/artworks stolen from Jews has ended up in Switzerland over the years.

Paul Johnson asks: Do homosexuals like John Major (Tom D.), Friday, 6 March 2015 16:47 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I think it's important to note that they wouldn't have asked it of a Palestinian student since the phenomenon of Israel criticism in universities is often, as in the rest of the world, more or less a pretext for antisemitism.

Mordy, Friday, 6 March 2015 16:48 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

^ well yeah exactly

even if she was pro-Israel, having a political opinion that differs from the majority opinion cannot be a disqualification for a judicial board esp

before i type my mealymouthed but but but, yes of course this is antisemitism. it's beyond clear that they thought her being a jew was a disqualification.

but really it depends on the degree of "difference from the majority opinion." we would not expect a white nationalist or even an active MRA type dude to be particularly fair in dealing with student disputes. there are people that "we all" could agree should not be in a position of judgment over others. but the lines around that category get pretty fuzzy.

if your view of israel is that it's a racist settler state then what other conclusion can you draw?
Sadeghi-Movahed, Singh, and Haq (and... Roth?) didn't think Beyda would be fair in judging people such as themselves (if you want to extend any generosity to them at all). just as they were unfair in judging Beyda in the same turn.

there's a kind of depressing zero-sum quality to these kinds of jewish-muslim disputes that my beloved deracinated liberalism is powerless to resolve.

goole, Friday, 6 March 2015 17:01 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

er xps, the "exatly" was to amateurist

goole, Friday, 6 March 2015 17:01 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

there's a kind of depressing zero-sum quality to these kinds of jewish-muslim disputes that my beloved deracinated liberalism is powerless to resolve.

― goole, Friday, March 6, 2015 12:01 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm. I actually think the anti-semitism here is secondary to a battle for political control over campuses, although there is an anti-semitic element to it. It's bullshit to call it a battle against "bias" though, it's just a battle to make one bias vs another be the default.

five six and (man alive), Friday, 6 March 2015 17:03 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I guess to the extent that I have a *bias* on account of being Jewish, I'd rather not see people disqualified from student governing bodies merely for potentially having the wrong position on Israel, even inasmuch as I understand how that position might offend a Muslim student. I will always have a certain Israel "bias" in the sense that the historical reasons for its founding are very personal to me, regardless of what I think of the results of that founding. And as much as I condemn Israel, I refuse any situation that baits me into the "condemn Israel on our terms OR ELSE" scenario.

five six and (man alive), Friday, 6 March 2015 17:07 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

paul, from wikipedia:

ccording to the 2000 census, the Jewish population of Switzerland was at 17,914 (0.2% of the total population).

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 17:18 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

it is a common name in Scotland

Uh, no it isn't!

Paul Johnson asks: Do homosexuals like John Major (Tom D.), Friday, 6 March 2015 17:22 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

imagine saying that US muslims "pay the price" for ISIS violence with harrassment. oh wait, plenty of people—on the right-wing—would say something like that. pot, meet kettle.

― he quipped with heat (amateurist), Thursday, March 5, 2015 8:32 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is the sort of thing that has me coming to the position that Islamophobia and anti-Semitism (in the US) are m/l two sides of the same oppressive coin, with this fixation on the inscrutable motives of these others and holding the collective accountable for the crimes of a few, often violently and openly.

stately, plump buck angel (silby), Friday, 6 March 2015 18:16 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

and if Muslims and Jews are subjecting one another to such prejudices in this country then there's a gap to be bridged.

stately, plump buck angel (silby), Friday, 6 March 2015 18:17 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

(I like to imagine that there's conversations to be had about the relationships between Muslims and Jews as immigrant & diasporic peoples in the West that have nothing to do with Israel, it's a nice dream isn't it?)

stately, plump buck angel (silby), Friday, 6 March 2015 18:18 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

those conversations do happen! but they don't make the news.

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 18:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

been awhile since I've met/made any immigrant muslim friends but for awhile I had a coworker who was married to yemeni immigrant and I loved hanging out w that guy at work functions, v smart, v interesting cat. those conversations can be had! but it's hard and rare.

Οὖτις, Friday, 6 March 2015 18:21 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

(we did not make the news)

Οὖτις, Friday, 6 March 2015 18:21 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I'd actually attribute a lot of the evolution of my views on Israel to my teenaged friendship with a single Palestinian dude. I think there is a lot to be said for having a real person in front of you who seems similar to you in every way except views on Israel (or anything) to make you think that there might be non-crazy reasons to have different views on Israel (or any other subject) from your own.

five six and (man alive), Friday, 6 March 2015 19:14 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I mean up until that point I was pretty much spouting echo-chambered talking points. The fact that he was cool and not hateful and yet had totally reasonable responses to a lot of my talking points started the process of me understanding that some of them were just talking points.

five six and (man alive), Friday, 6 March 2015 19:15 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

"up until that point" being only up until age 13, to be fair, not like I was all that politically sophisticated yet.

five six and (man alive), Friday, 6 March 2015 19:15 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i grew up in a milieu that included a lot of jews (i'm one of them) along with a bunch of palestinian intellectuals, for what that's worth.

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 19:32 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

(this is in the US, not the middle east.)

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Friday, 6 March 2015 19:33 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I want to express my frustration with my right-wing friends on Facebook who are uncritically posting articles about how muslims are bottling and selling the blood of Christians to drink. It is utterly beyond me how anyone can be aware of the long history and current liveliness of anti-Semitism (and these guys, like me, are) and simultaneously take "they drink Christian blood!" as a credible accusation.

In fact I feel like it's borderline anti-Semitic to participate in the perpetuation of the idea that drinking Christian blood for fun and profit is a thing that actually exists in the word.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 14:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i have never seen this - that's insane!

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 14:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

my FB friends in this vein like to source "JewsNews" for material of this kind -- feel free to go there yourself, I'm scared to.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 16:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

in this vein
hah

micah, Wednesday, 11 March 2015 21:14 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Space.Cowboys.2000.1080p.HDDVD.x264-hV (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 21:19 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

that's news to me

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Wednesday, 11 March 2015 21:23 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

news Jews can use

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Thursday, 12 March 2015 02:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

wow, cynthia mckinney a know-nothing anti-semitic moron, no long public record indicating that

definitely listening to an adult MTG player (salthigh), Thursday, 12 March 2015 06:55 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

birds of a feather...

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Thursday, 12 March 2015 18:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Staff often found themselves with students they had zero authority over. I've read articles where it is "revealed" that Emwazi used "Jew" as a slur and went on anti-Semitic rants. This would be no revelation to anyone who went to the school. "Jew" was a standard insult. There was normally no conviction to this—it was teenage rebellion no different really to the "edgy" comments made in any other school. At Quintin Kynaston, however, these comments often went unchecked.

Pro-9/11 statements were also commonplace and teachers, often not from the local community, did not have the intellectual resources to tackle this rhetoric because it was totally outside of their experience. Many ignored it, some tried to curry favor by joining in. I remember a student calling a teacher a "Jew," and the teacher replied that it was the student who was the "Jew." Another teacher, totally at a loss at how to control the class, talked about 9/11 conspiracies, how it was an inside job—yes, "Sheikh Osama" had nothing to do with it.

pom /via/ chi (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yes, that is antisemitism

head clowning instructor (art), Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

what is the context for that, nakhchivan?

he quipped with heat (amateurist), Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

maybe worth starting another thread on this subject so rubes stop posting that xp

pom /via/ chi (nakhchivan), Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Ellen Willis on anti-anti-zionism from 2003 but it easily could've been written yesterday:
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/181449/willis-anti-anti-zionist

Mordy, Friday, 27 March 2015 14:54 (5 days ago) Permalink

Sure. Pete Beinart could have written it. Or anyone from J Street. Why is this surprising? The politics of the region are locked in a static cycle and so people are saying the same things in 2015 people said in 2003 because people see no way out of their present positions.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 28 March 2015 02:27 (4 days ago) Permalink

But just when I think Tablet speaks with only one voice on Israel they run something like this:

http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/189842/confessions-non-zionist-jew

Good for them for running it, even though I'm closer to Willis than I am to Gitlin on this. (I am a Zionist, after all.)

Guayaquil (eephus!), Saturday, 28 March 2015 02:37 (4 days ago) Permalink


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