Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2647 of them)
It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.


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

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

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

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

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

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

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.

If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

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

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

That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

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

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

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

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

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

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


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

there you go mate

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

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

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

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

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

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

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

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

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

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

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.



Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

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

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

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

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

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

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

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

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

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

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

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

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

yes, I agree.

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

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

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

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

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

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

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

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

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

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

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

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

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

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Friday, 22 August 2014 17:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Mordy, Monday, 25 August 2014 17:19 (2 months ago) Permalink

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

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

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

Mordy, Monday, 25 August 2014 17:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

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

Mordy, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:31 (2 months ago) Permalink

idk that looks like a Sherriff's badge to me

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:32 (2 months ago) Permalink

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

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:33 (2 months ago) Permalink

Mordy, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 15:35 (2 months ago) Permalink

fuck

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:21 (2 months ago) Permalink

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

curmudgeon, Wednesday, 27 August 2014 21:42 (2 months ago) Permalink

i don't like everything here but i think he makes some clever points:
http://dsadevil.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/respectability-politics-and-causes-of.html

Mordy, Monday, 8 September 2014 22:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

that post about Respectability Politics is good.

ey mk II, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 08:14 (2 months ago) Permalink

my problem with the BDS thing is it really doesn't counter AIPAC in any meaningful way. if Americans want to divest from Israel, then we need to get our gov't to stop funneling money/weapons to Israel (something I totally support) and that means undermining AIPAC. which is about as easy as undermining the NRA (another key goal of mine)

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 18:50 (2 months ago) Permalink

i think robert fine makes some serious ideological challenges to BDS in that piece - not just practical/pragmatic ones

Mordy, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 18:53 (2 months ago) Permalink

i think AIPAC's influence might already been shrinking a bit?

my problem w/ BDS has always been that it seems more like grandstanding than an effective form of protest. which is kind of offensive from two angles.

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:21 (2 months ago) Permalink

and as a jew i admit i'm kind of guarded and wary about some of the more heated rhetoric employed by proponents of BDS; that respectability-politics blog above (which I liked a lot) gets at some of the reasons why.

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:22 (2 months ago) Permalink

huh there seem to be a bunch of articles from March about AIPAC's waning influence in light of Iran brouhaha but I kinda wonder if that reversed itself with the recent Gaza incursion. I didn't see any members of Congress bucking the AIPAC party line.

xp

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:24 (2 months ago) Permalink

the Fine thing (I haven't read it all yet btw) seems to be exclusively about academic institutions...? Academic boycotts seem inherently stupid and wrong imo.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

he makes some points about discrimination based on nationality but yeah i think his point is most damning re academic boycott

Mordy, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

yeah there's been a ton of discussion about this -- i agree that academic boycotts seem counterproductive and kind of dangerous to scholarly culture.

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:33 (2 months ago) Permalink

and, again, completely ineffectual

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:34 (2 months ago) Permalink

it just seems so dumb. it isn't the universities that are building illegal settlements and dropping bombs.

and yeah its actual effects on intellectual discourse are inherently negative

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:35 (2 months ago) Permalink

also i think his point about alienating allies is really stark, esp re academics + other cultural resistances who may form/join a leftist coalition.

Mordy, Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:35 (2 months ago) Permalink

and as a jew i admit i'm kind of guarded and wary about some of the more heated rhetoric employed by proponents of BDS; that respectability-politics blog above (which I liked a lot) gets at some of the reasons why.

― I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:22 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Me too. Theoretically I don't really oppose BDS, but I find myself in a lot of conversations (online) anyway that I don't like being in with some of its supporters. Once I feel like I'm being pinned into the "are you the right kind of Jew?" corner I don't really let my guard down easily.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:45 (2 months ago) Permalink

And also that post Mordy posted is on point about certain things -- the whole idea that all accusations of anti-Semitism are nothing more than a cynical smear campaign really bothers me. The Steven Salaita affair is one place where I find myself unable to really support the left line, because (1) I actually did find his tweets hateful, and (2) I think a university is entitled to be concerned about the way an academic publicly holds himself out, esp before fully hiring him (let alone giving tenure). I don't really buy that "civility" is just being used to silence all critics of Israel.

'arry Goldman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 20:48 (2 months ago) Permalink

i have really mixed feelings about the salaita affair. my sense is that he is being singled out a little bit, since professors elsewhere have said really awful things on social media in other contexts and haven't been fired (or in this case a job offer rescinded at the last minute). i think UI handled it poorly, and their public comment on the matter has been incredibly tin-earned at best and genuinely scary at worst. but salaita seems like an idiot firebrand. so my sort of above-it-all opinion is "a pox on both their houses." but as an academic i still don't know exactly what to think.

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:09 (2 months ago) Permalink

another thought i had, which reminds me a little of the whole ward churchill affair, is why they would hire this guy in the first place given his history of asinine public comments. (churchill is obviously a whole nother kettle of fish but my sense of that whole affair was that the original sin was the university hiring him in the first place.)

I dunno. (amateurist), Wednesday, 10 September 2014 21:11 (2 months ago) Permalink

it just seems so dumb. it isn't the universities that are building illegal settlements and dropping bombs.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:35 PM

sorry but this ignores how many universities are closely tied to the state, not only economically but politically, not to mention in literal military applications - not only in Israel of course (the US DoD finances many departments and projects at America's best universities). further, the whole point of a boycott is to put pressure on a particular group - in this case for academics at universities in Israel to in turn pressure their government and use whatever influence they may have have towards a particular cause. how is this "dumb"?

the boycott is specifically against institutions tied to the Israeli state as opposed to academics who are Israeli, so Fine's efforts to conflate the two and portray this as discrimination against people based on their nationality are quite unfair.

ey mk II, Thursday, 11 September 2014 00:55 (2 months ago) Permalink

Yeeeeah I dont really think israeli academics have much clout w the govt. Certainly not as much as American $$$ do. It seems like a weak lever to attempt to use from outside to affect policy. With tons of negative side effects.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 11 September 2014 01:27 (2 months ago) Permalink

Well, the boycott is dumb, but it's true that it's not a boycott against jews or Israelis. My Danish friend is doing a ph.d. in Israel - he married an Israeli girl and moved with her - and he'll be hit as well.

Frederik B, Thursday, 11 September 2014 02:05 (2 months ago) Permalink

http://972mag.com/israeli-universities-becoming-hasbara-mills/38929/

"Two Israeli universities, Haifa University and Tel Aviv University, now offer programs in Hasbara. The Haifa course is meant for Israeli students, the Tel Aviv one for foreign students. Both are supported by Israeli ministries: the Haifa one by the Ministry of Propaganda and Diaspora (Ministry of Hasbara, in Hebrew) and the Tel Aviv program by the Foreign Ministry."

yep, definitely no complicity of institutions of higher learning in Israel with the state's domestic and foreign policy here!

more examples here: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.612657?v=EEF7C70EBF2B3A98C8CCC99971173CA2

ey mk II, Thursday, 11 September 2014 08:29 (2 months ago) Permalink

I didn't say there was no complicity, just that its negligible in the scope of things. And it's like two steps removed from actually impacting Israeli policy - the idea being that a) boycott the universities (OK no problem there), b) universities then respond by accepting the demands of the boycotters (highly unlikely, when has this ever happened? the boycott would just make them more isolationist and defensive, not cooperative) and then c) Israeli government acquiesces to the (coerced) demands of its academic institutions (also highly unlikely given that its the gov't that has leverage over the universities, not the other way around). The whole thing seems poorly conceived.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 11 September 2014 16:04 (2 months ago) Permalink

And still smacks of stifling ideas you disagree with.

bnw, Thursday, 11 September 2014 16:15 (2 months ago) Permalink

yeah I'm treating that as a separate issue

Οὖτις, Thursday, 11 September 2014 16:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

that was reparations ffs

Mordy, Sunday, 14 September 2014 17:05 (2 months ago) Permalink

They can pry my precious egyptian gold from my cold dead hands

Οὖτις, Sunday, 14 September 2014 18:36 (2 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

this place is like a block from my house. my (jewish) wife and i have met this dude and bought coffee from him a few times. he didn't strike me as a raving anti semite at the time but who knows what evil lurks in the hearts etc.

adam, Thursday, 2 October 2014 17:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

what evil lurks in the hearts of instagram

Mordy, Thursday, 2 October 2014 17:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

http://i.imgur.com/0dB6CMw.jpg

This guy got 8% of the vote in the 2014 Ukrainian Presidential election.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Thursday, 23 October 2014 07:07 (1 month ago) Permalink

um, care to fill us in?

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 31 October 2014 18:23 (3 weeks ago) Permalink


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