Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3805 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

yes, I agree.

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

By 'opinion' here I mean 'what some people' think is right.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

From dictionary.com

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:12 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So for example, the law that says "kill someone, go to jail", implies that killing is wrong.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".


(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I believe killing is wrong, but I'll admit that it's just a belief.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

law is not an opinion except in an abstract sense. Even if an opinion is converted into law through the established procedure it is not an opinion. At least it's not an opinion anymore.

That's all I'm saying.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?

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

Our rabbi would curtail his sermon whenever Spurs played home, which was a great act of altruism and tolerance.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:24 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

About 40.5% said Jews in their country had “a particular relationship with money”

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Why did people stop writing books of the bible, anyway? There should totally be one tracing the decline of Spurs that culminates in them being cast of the garden of 'big clubs'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry for crossposting with a serious post.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"mentality and lifestyle" different from, and this is the important part, "OTHER CITIZENS." Reminds me of that Bojeffries Saga story where the cops burst in to see a slavering werewolf standing on the table in a restaurant, say "well, it's obvious what our job is here," grab the one black guy in the restaurant, beat him up and drag him away, as one of the other patrons says to his companion "I'm not racism, but they ent the same as us, are they?"

Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

No, but I've heard it said in a neutral light, by Enrique four posts up.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This thread made it past 60 posts without anyone mentioning the link to the article doesn't work?

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Another thing is Jews are what.. like 3% of the population? That makes an 18% anti-semitism rate scary enough.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

bnw - I completely agree with that (though I don't understand what the 3% has to do with it)

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I found it too just now. I didn't realize you'd posted the whole piece. I'm looking for the original survey but not having much luck so far.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

More at good ol' Al Jazeera - including the delightful headline: Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This stuff scares me a lot. Because, unless I just had my eyes closed as a young man, it seems that anti-Semitism has really grown just in the last five years. Since 9/11, really.

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

lots of MAGA types on twitter triumphantly posting screenshots of this headline from the other day:

the article is here, under a revised headline, but otherwise unaltered, Juan Thompson being arrested doesn't really contradict anything it says

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semitic-acts-might-faked-make-movement-look-bad/

soref, Friday, 3 March 2017 17:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Looks like this has made it's way to the greater Cleveland area: http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2017/03/06/swastika-carved-into-door-of-lorain-synagogue

Lauren Schumer Donor (Phil D.), Monday, 6 March 2017 17:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

http://forward.com/fast-forward/366240/end-jewish-privilege-poster-circulates-on-chicago-college-campus/

it scans to me like a right-wing production (the use of the word goyim, discussing 'jews' forthright rather than using euphemisms) but it's interesting how it utilizes left-wing memes (the top 1%, 'privilege') to make its argument. this reminds me of the jacobin piece about compatibility btwn identity studies concepts & far-right racialists/racists.

Mordy, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:12 (one week ago) Permalink

'the top 1%' is hardly and identity studies concept, though.

Frederik B, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:19 (one week ago) Permalink

i was going to add a line noting the 1% something something socialism of fools vestige but i got lazy

Mordy, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:29 (one week ago) Permalink

To me it's more that abusers are always trying to turn their victims' words against themselves.

Frederik B, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:48 (one week ago) Permalink

belief in exploitative jewish conspiracy theories is not limited to white supremacists

Mordy, Friday, 17 March 2017 00:50 (one week ago) Permalink

that jacobin piece is fucking stupid

SFTGFOP (El Tomboto), Friday, 17 March 2017 00:50 (one week ago) Permalink

That's one of the things about these assholes. They insist that they're 'using the lefts ideas against it' when all it shows is that they haven't even begun to understand the terms they're using.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Friday, 17 March 2017 14:32 (one week ago) Permalink

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/israeli-man-19-arrested-in-connection-with-threats-against-jewish-community-centers-in-us-other-nations/2017/03/23/15123300-0fcb-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html

A young Israeli man who also holds U.S. citizenship was arrested by Israeli police Thursday in connection with the wave of security-related threats made to Jewish communities and institutions in the United States and several other countries over the past few months, according to the FBI and local authorities.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:11 (five days ago) Permalink

bizarre

Mordy, Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:18 (five days ago) Permalink

I wonder if Trump is going to crow about this.

duped and used by my worst Miss U (President Keyes), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:22 (five days ago) Permalink

don't really care, just glad it's a faraway nutcase and not somebody who might actually be planning to blow up a jcc

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:23 (five days ago) Permalink

that said, i don't think this guy got on a plane and came to america to desecrate people's graves

Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:24 (five days ago) Permalink

No, he clearly wasn't responsible for domestic acts of anti-Semitism, and that's part of why I absolutely care that Trump is obviously going to get all DO U SEE about this. Just about the fucking worst case scenario, because now he'll actually have a legitimate example to point to when dismissing hate crimes, which will just further embolden people who are inclined to do this shit.

Ambling Shambling Man (Old Lunch), Thursday, 23 March 2017 14:53 (five days ago) Permalink

Has anyone confirmed the guy who called in the threats was Jewish? Or just Israeli? Is assuming every Israeli is Jewish ... anti-semitic?

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:08 (five days ago) Permalink

Or anti-Arab, one of the two.

Bill Teeters (Tom D.), Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:09 (five days ago) Permalink

The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2011 was 75.4% Jewish, 16.9% Muslim, 2.1% Christian, and 1.7% Druze, with the remaining 4.0% belonging to minor faiths such as Samaritanism, Baha'iism or no religion/

Let's blame it on the Druze, for once.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:12 (five days ago) Permalink

toi and haaretz both have that he's jewish (and american-israeli, and supposedly was rejected from serving in the IDF) - i don't think they'd run it without knowing for sure so i think it's safe to assume the information is correct.

Mordy, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:15 (five days ago) Permalink

Psh, it's clearly misinformation being spread, since we all know the Druze run the media.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 March 2017 19:34 (five days ago) Permalink

oh man


The teenager, who was born in Israel, has a brain tumor that can affect his cognitive abilities and lead to “irrational” behavior, his lawyer, Galit Bash, said. She would not say whether her client, who she said did not have a criminal record, had admitted or denied involvement.

...

Israeli news outlets reported that when the teenager was arrested, he tried to grab an officer’s gun.

change display name (Jordan), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:02 (four days ago) Permalink

Yikes. But also...this is a fairly elaborate and sustained undertaking to blame on a brain tumor.

Ambling Shambling Man (Old Lunch), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:06 (four days ago) Permalink

i heard they found bitcoins and stuff on his computer and there's speculation that he was being paid to do it?

Mordy, Friday, 24 March 2017 15:07 (four days ago) Permalink

fuck i hate how much i want to know who paid this kid

chip n dale recuse rangers (Jon not Jon), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:10 (four days ago) Permalink

paid/groomed whatever

chip n dale recuse rangers (Jon not Jon), Friday, 24 March 2017 15:10 (four days ago) Permalink

Front page of the London Review Of Books: article about Israel buying super expensive missiles from the US (haven't finished it yet, but didn't see anything objectionable in it so far - it's online at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n07/daniel-soar/the-most-expensive-weapon-ever-built).

HOWEVER, on the bottom of the page, ads for two books from one publisher - one about the Hebrew language, the other about resistance and compliance within Jewish communities during the holocaust (looks interesting).

Is this probably just a coincidence of who bought the advertising space, or am I right in detecting a sort of hyper-defensive "don't you even try call us anti-semitic for this" stance in the placement?

Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 25 March 2017 18:34 (three days ago) Permalink

Princeton university press always have that advertising slot under the first page of the first article, so I think it's probably a coincidence. (though looking back over past issues there does sometimes - not always - seem to be a thematic link between the subject of the article and the two books being promoted?)

soref, Saturday, 25 March 2017 19:30 (three days ago) Permalink

i think it's reasonable to assume ppl reading about israel might also be interested in a book about hebrew + jews - i wouldn't read any nefariousness into it esp since LRB has run far more questionable articles before so it's not like they're afraid of controversy.

Mordy, Saturday, 25 March 2017 20:49 (three days ago) Permalink

Having read the whole article now it's barely about Israel anyway so I certainly jumped the gun, sry.

Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 25 March 2017 23:28 (three days ago) Permalink


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