Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3439 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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


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

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (12 years ago) Permalink

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


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

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

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

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (12 years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

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

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

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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



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

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

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

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

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

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

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

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

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

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

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (12 years ago) Permalink

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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

sarahell, Thursday, 7 April 2016 19:34 (1 month ago) Permalink

oops --

Mordy, Saturday, 9 April 2016 21:09 (1 month ago) Permalink

:|

eyecrud (silby), Saturday, 9 April 2016 21:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

holy moly

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Saturday, 9 April 2016 21:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

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

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Sunday, 10 April 2016 00:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

jfc i cannot handle that

wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 10 April 2016 02:52 (1 month ago) Permalink

the restaurant, i mean.

wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 10 April 2016 03:07 (1 month ago) Permalink

jfc could be a p good guaranteed-kosher chicken franchise

never had it so ogod (darraghmac), Sunday, 10 April 2016 09:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

ha!

wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 10 April 2016 16:52 (1 month ago) Permalink

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

Mordy, Sunday, 10 April 2016 19:23 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

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

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

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

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

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

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

this in particular from the letter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

saw this bumped and thought it would be about #renegadejew

Mordy, Monday, 16 May 2016 20:23 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

xp. lanarkshire is never in the news for a good reason

the unbearable jimmy smits (jim in glasgow), Monday, 16 May 2016 20:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink


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