Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2893 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

well sure, they didn't ask the english if the jews killed jesus, or if they use blood to bake their matzot.

Mordy, Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:35 (4 days ago) Permalink

buzza:

yeah, i didn't know they were jews.

anyway, it's from my brief experience. i'm sure if you've lived in la a long time, you'd have a more nuanced perspective.

also, the persian thing came from an actual persian/iranian. i think in canada, i mostly use persian, even when referring to muslim persians.

F♯ A♯ (∞), Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:37 (4 days ago) Permalink

in Los Angeles there are many dark-looking, hairy Middle Easterners who are Jewish. It turns out, for the typical Angeleno, that is what a Jewish person looks like

I haven't lived in LA in a long time but wtf @ this

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:38 (4 days ago) Permalink

lot of ashkenazi jews who make aliyah end up having kids that look sephardi - obv we're pretty malleable (or shapeshifters)

Mordy, Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:38 (4 days ago) Permalink

much more likely to think of ultra-religious jews living to the immediate south and east of Beverly hills, or westside & valley jewish assimilated communities

^^^ this

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:39 (4 days ago) Permalink

L.A. has the second largest population of American Jews (after NY duh) and they have been there a *long* time

Οὖτις, Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:48 (4 days ago) Permalink

Yeah, I think Mordy understands what I'm saying.

Also, we're not talking about American Jews, we're talking about Persians (who are Jewish)

F♯ A♯ (∞), Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:50 (4 days ago) Permalink

I often (dependent on state of covering facial hair growth or amount of site dust all over me when I was a spark) got mistaken for Jewish or Asian because of a combination of brown eyes, Arabic looking nose and olive skin tone. Both my parents were Irish immigrants but there is definitely something else in my DNA other than that ole oversubscribed paddy tatty water.

xelab, Thursday, 22 January 2015 22:17 (4 days ago) Permalink

That might be true but it's divorced from the stats about widespread opinions you see in polls like the YouGov one. Most antisemitism in the UK is the corrosive trad kind not the violent religious nutcase kind and focusing on the latter isn't going to do much for the majority of British Jews. Xp

― Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Thursday, 22 January 2015 21:34 (Yesterday)

this is very odd perspective, clearly the more outré and virulent antisemitisms of the young and possibly dangerous are worthy of interest because they cause disproportionate and immediate harm that might be mitigated, there is no evident way to 'do much' about about old people with curious ideas about michael howard unless they are all admitted to dave whelan's re-education programme

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 00:21 (3 days ago) Permalink

If a significant proportion of Brits across all age ranges hold antisemitic views, as suggested by the poll, that still needs to be addressed in the same way that all other forms of racism need to be addressed. It's a source of discrimination, abuse and lots of low-level thuggery.

Without being complacent about the risk of the low-level thuggery of the young and radical turning into something more dangerous, British Jews have never really been a focus of terrorism in the way they have in France and, if the broad downward trend in antisemitic incidents is correct, there's no reason to believe there is a greater endemic risk of violence than in other eras. Not really sure what the mitigation strategies for preventing radicalism that haven't been tried would be if that's not correct though.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 00:55 (3 days ago) Permalink

nevermind that the link you posted downplays the results of the yougov poll completely and yougov and its leading questions are not the most reliable metric, (weren't you saying this the other week) 'that still needs to be addressed' is the sort of social liberal british response to everything

there isn't a lot to be done about it once people are out of school age and unless it causes workplace difficulties etc, it simply is not a public phenomenon, whereas for example one can explicitly teach kids that conspiracy myths are false, close down unlicensed centres of 'islamic education' with known links to jihad apologists etc etc

suggesting that some magic line exists between france and england because jews haven't often been a target for political violence here since the fascist day is fanciful -- syria etc has internationalized jihad to an even greater extent, why will the uk's own graduates of al q'aeda in the yemen and even more vicious factions in syria be any less inclined to target the same groups?

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 01:14 (3 days ago) Permalink

The point is that those people are already being targeted. Hate speech laws are aggressively going after anti-semitic preachers, radical centres of Islamic instruction are being infiltrated and shut down, anyone returning from fighting in Syria can expect to be jailed for up to ten years, anyone clicking on www.alshabab.org.uk can probably expect GCHQ to track them until they're 97 years old, etc. If there was anything else practical to do, i suspect the government would be doing it.

Beyond that, it comes back to education. Targeting resources at those on the fringes and in danger of falling into the fringes makes sense but compartmentalising corrosive antisemitism as 'a Muslim problem' is actively unhelpful when it's part of the mainstream of society. YouGov polls are inherently unreliable but the results are plausible in the context of similar polls in other countries and, even if they're 5% or 10% out, it's pretty clear that antisemitism, like other forms of racism, is widespread across all groups. Highlighting the risk of bodily harm from radicals is valid but not at the expense of acknowledging that the majority of minor things that make the lives of British Jews marginally harder than they should be are not from that world. I genuinely think that 'mainstream' antisemitism could be a factor in determining the next Prime Minister.

Again, education is key - not just in schools but socially reinforcing the idea that antisemitism is racism and racism is unacceptable. That can't just be a top-down state thing.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 08:31 (3 days ago) Permalink

. I genuinely think that 'mainstream' antisemitism could be a factor in determining the next Prime Minister.

You do?

A trumpet growing in a garden (Tom D.), Friday, 23 January 2015 09:13 (3 days ago) Permalink

I suspect that whoever forced Miliband into awkwardly eating a bacon sandwich as a photo op does as well. Whether it's overt or unconscious, i think that a lot of the dislike of him is presented in a way consistent with a historic suspicion of Jewish intellectuals. Not that he's even particularly intellectual - he's demarcated as 'not a man of the people', 'not one of us', etc.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 09:35 (3 days ago) Permalink

Don't know if you saw my post upthread, but I'm not sure how many 'ordinary voters' (hard working or otherwise) are even aware he's Jewish, same when Howard was Tory leader. But, for sure, the media certainly are.

A trumpet growing in a garden (Tom D.), Friday, 23 January 2015 10:24 (3 days ago) Permalink

I think being Jewish is way down the list of reasons the GBP will not vote for him.

give rob da bank a gun... (onimo), Friday, 23 January 2015 11:00 (3 days ago) Permalink

I agree but in a tight election with a populist press using implicit antisemitism against him, it could be a factor.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 12:08 (3 days ago) Permalink

Most British Jewish people I know (yes, the fairly secular/'cultural' ones) are bacon sandwich consumers where their American counterparts probably wouldn't be. I blame the high quality of the average British bacon butty.

camp event (suzy), Friday, 23 January 2015 13:08 (3 days ago) Permalink

One of my close friends from childhood was Jewish and is now a fairly successful food blogger. I never thought about it before but I just went and checked her blog and there are tons of bacon and pork recipes on there.

how's life, Friday, 23 January 2015 13:18 (3 days ago) Permalink

There's also Jay Rayner, the best-known example, shotgunning barbecued ribs like there's no tomorrow.

I grew up in a US suburb where c. 40 per cent of the residents were Jewish. Maybe a quarter of those families were strict kosher people, half were 'eh, I'll have a cheeseburger, then' types who didn't eat pork or shellfish and did participate in Passover, with the others being as RIBS RIBS SAUSAGES as their gentile neighbours.

camp event (suzy), Friday, 23 January 2015 13:45 (3 days ago) Permalink

anyone clicking on www.alshabab.org.uk can probably expect GCHQ to track them until they're 97 years old, etc.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 23 January 2015 14:49 (3 days ago) Permalink

not sure how many 'ordinary voters' (hard working or otherwise) are even aware he's Jewish, same when Howard was Tory leader. But, for sure, the media certainly are.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 23 January 2015 14:51 (3 days ago) Permalink

Is this anti-semitism?

Just kidding. I have no idea how one determines this, but my guess that the number of people who identify as Jewish and the number of Jews who keep kosher, don't eat bacon, don't eat pork.shellfish, are widely divergent. Growing up outside Philadelphia, I didn't know a single family that kept kosher, and even now, it's usually just a symbolic gesture I come across. Ie, don't cook pork at home, but bacon is OK, and everything out of the house is up for grabs or whatever.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 23 January 2015 14:53 (3 days ago) Permalink

YouGov polls are inherently unreliable but the results are plausible in the context of similar polls in other countries and, even if they're 5% or 10% out, it's pretty clear that antisemitism, like other forms of racism, is widespread across all groups. Highlighting the risk of bodily harm from radicals is valid but not at the expense of acknowledging that the majority of minor things that make the lives of British Jews marginally harder than they should be are not from that world. I genuinely think that 'mainstream' antisemitism could be a factor in determining the next Prime Minister.

― Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 08:31 (10 hours ago)

though mostly i would rate you at the top of the list of posters writing on british public life, this sort of constant via media statement of the obvious is as good as you have to a flaw

'highlighting the risk of bodily harm from radicals is valid' that's reassuring to know, although people visiting jewish municipal buildings surrounded by cops with mp5s probably don't feel it needs highlighting

'at the expense of acknowledging that the majority of minor things' idk if anyone has spent more time here noting all of these than i have in relation to eg the paedophile scandals etc, so why bother saying this?

these homiletic checks and balances are just a way of always ensuring that censure is distributed, so that clearly any reference to jihadism has to be balanced with a daily mail editorial slyly undermining ed miliband, nevermind if that has been amply documented here

'socially reinforcing the idea that antisemitism is racism and racism is unacceptable' this is presumably in response to the common policy position that racism is unacceptable but nobody should do anything about it

nevermind that the appeal of racism for a lot of people is that it is unacceptable, this is clearly not what i was talking about, that is the work of everyone ever in private life, it is not an instrumental response, not anything that pertains to the particular lethal threats to a particular group that i was discussing

it does not follow that consideration of that means the accretion of small hatreds that corrupt civil society are forgotten, nor does it represent a 'compartmentalization' to detail a particular and recent threat that exists in addition to all the extant, ancient and local antisemitisms

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:16 (3 days ago) Permalink

and wrt ed miliband -- antisemitism quite clearly will affect the election because if one assumes at least 5-10% of people are acitively antisemitic, with a larger cohort subject to largely unknowing antisemitic biases, it is enough to make a difference in a very tight race

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:19 (3 days ago) Permalink

since we're partially discussing UK polling/statistics, have we mentioned this yet?

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/128586/scotland-yard-reveals-huge-rise-antisemitic-crime-london

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:26 (3 days ago) Permalink

yeah i mentioned it yesterday and i am not nearly as sanguine as sv that it will fall back again quickly

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:28 (3 days ago) Permalink

certainly some of the spike is attributable to the gaza conflict inflaming muslims in the uk, which could mean it might recede as we get farther away from op protective edge but that relies on israel never having military conflicts w/ middle east muslims again which seems super unlikely to me. also i think prob the vast majority should be attributable to radicals coming back from fighting in the middle east (obv all these things have interlocking dimensions - radicals coming home who find themselves angry about gaza but now w/ the skills/will to do something about it)

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:34 (3 days ago) Permalink

idk i would guess most of the increase is just domestic yobbery, plenty of it not committed by muslims but fomented by the general upsurge in self-righteous hatred wrt palestine, and the final erasure of any remaining sense of the difference between israeli state actions and jews

the people involved with syrian jihad or recruitment represent a smallish group (maybe a few hundred) most of whom will be caught, prosecuted, or tracked by security services, it's a sporadic but lethal threat

nakhchivan, Friday, 23 January 2015 19:41 (3 days ago) Permalink

I live in the middle of the biggest Orthodox Jewish area in Europe and haven't seen any armed police but have seen lots of lower-level prejudice and dickery over the years. It's not about apportioning blame evenly. Within the British Muslim community, which I agree is going to more antisemitic than the baseline, the number of potentially dangerous individuals is absolutely dwarfed by people who just don't like Jews. The potential for terrorism is the single most serious threat but, in terms of broader community cohesion, making the effort to tackle antisemitism about a trickle of returning ISIS sympathisers and radical mosques that are already being targeted seems like useless grandstanding that adds nothing to what is already being done as part of the broader effort to curb terrorist threats and radicalisation. If there is more to suggest, that could be implemented, it would be good to hear it. I'm not accusing you of compartmentalising but it's something I've seen a lot of recently.

What potentially can be addressed is that accretion of small hatreds using the same techniques that have lessened the strength of other racisms over the last twenty years. I don't get the impression that antisemitism is taken as seriously or judged as harshly within the mainstream as many other forms of prejudice. Outside of formal education there isn't much the state can do but anyone with social power to slap down the erosion of the line between Israeli policy and Jewish responsibility, for starters, needs to be doing that.

Idk, we're not arguing about what is worse and neither of us have appears to have a particularly solid policy framework for moving forward.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 20:04 (3 days ago) Permalink

Would secularising all education be a start? S

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 20:07 (3 days ago) Permalink

i think the bigger problem w/ the unserious treatment of antisemitism in the mainstream is actually bc of how unique the prejudice is. bc it's about jewish power / conspiracies it's easy for ppl who exist within the discourse to think that jews are not disadvantaged, or that they're advantaged enough, or have too much power actually, etc, so that charges of antisemitism are easier to dismiss bc after all jews are doing okay so there must not be that much /real/ prejudice against them.

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 20:35 (3 days ago) Permalink

Yep, I think that's probably true.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Friday, 23 January 2015 20:39 (3 days ago) Permalink

*hits buzzer* not antisemitism! wait, shit

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 22:46 (3 days ago) Permalink

the fuck is going on in argentina

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/rogue-agents-alberto-nisman-death_n_6532882.html

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 22:47 (3 days ago) Permalink

i suppose that might be a better post on MENA? idk, it's iran related (allegedly)

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 22:47 (3 days ago) Permalink

*hits buzzer* not antisemitism! wait, shit

this joke gets made a lot itt but afaik this is the only thread to discuss antisemitism as a general phenomenon

Mordy, Friday, 23 January 2015 23:08 (3 days ago) Permalink

just riffing on his identification as "gentile" in the hed. of course it is.

goole, Friday, 23 January 2015 23:15 (3 days ago) Permalink

the fuck is going on in argentina

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/rogue-agents-alberto-nisman-death_n_6532882.html

― goole, Friday, January 23, 2015 4:47 PM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

seriously, wtf. that article gave me whiplash. all i know is it's going to make a great movie someday.

I dunno. (amateurist), Friday, 23 January 2015 23:20 (3 days ago) Permalink

I dunno. (amateurist), Saturday, 24 January 2015 00:45 (2 days ago) Permalink

Standards for cartoonists' right to offend seem fluid.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.638240

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:36 (Yesterday) Permalink

shit rip that cartoonist eh

local eire man (darraghmac), Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:39 (Yesterday) Permalink

wow i can't believe that the private self-regulatory organization Australian Press Council mildly condemned a newspaper for breaching Standards of Practice. whatever happened to freedom of speech???

Mordy, Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:45 (Yesterday) Permalink

meanwhile how many articles have been written so far saying that no one should be massacred for drawing a cartoon but charlie hebdo was asking for it.

Mordy, Sunday, 25 January 2015 23:47 (Yesterday) Permalink

extraordinary misreading of howard jacobson imo

sanctimonious uncontextualized linkdumps as an enlightmenment (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 26 January 2015 14:12 (2 hours ago) Permalink

idk if you think i'm saying jacobson wrote one of those articles and obv he didn't, or you don't think he was responding to those sorts of articles (which is why I linked to him)

Mordy, Monday, 26 January 2015 14:32 (1 hour ago) Permalink

The "but" that was deemed so necessary after 9/11 - that great "but" from which all the lesser "buts" have sprung - was the "but" of extenuation. It was the first, grammatical step in shifting blame from perpetrator to victim. Not only on the back of that "but" was America reminded that others had suffered, that America was instrumental in that suffering, and that America could therefore be said to bear a share of responsibility for what happened, the "butters" finally came within a whisker of condoning the act of terrorism itself.

Mordy, Monday, 26 January 2015 14:35 (1 hour ago) Permalink

Standards for cartoonists' right to offend seem fluid.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.638240

― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Sunday, January 25, 2015 6:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Morbs, honestly, posting that in this thread is clear trolling. Do you go in the rolling race thread and complain about people being offended by caricatures of black people?

walid foster dulles (man alive), Monday, 26 January 2015 14:42 (1 hour ago) Permalink


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