Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2221 of them)
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

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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 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 (10 years ago) Permalink

i see part of the role of israel for diaspora jewry to both campaign on behalf of their rights when threatened (eg chastising USSR over treatment of refusniks) and accept them unconditionally when they become refugees (like the largest immigration of Jews from France this year than ever before). i think consequentially that jews worldwide are safer today now that israel is in existence. but i do agree that this is an interpretation and if your explanation is some mixture of a) horror over the holocaust, b) 99% of world jewry in israel + united states, c) more modern values dominating western world, then i think those are all elements too.

Mordy, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:27 (Yesterday) Permalink

Mordy, do you think Israel could/should be an open society, with equal rights and opportunities for non-Jewish people? Or would you prefer it to be a have or safe places predominantly for Jews?

I think one reason why people equal Israel, its government and its actions, is because minorities aren't always treated equally.

Le Bateau Ivre, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:32 (Yesterday) Permalink

xp have=haven

Le Bateau Ivre, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:33 (Yesterday) Permalink

and xp equal Jews and Israel

Le Bateau Ivre, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:33 (Yesterday) Permalink

i think that Israel's primary purpose is, and should remain, being a safe haven for Jews. i also think that without compromising that identity, Israel should strive to be as open. democratic and egalitarian as possible. i don't think that these two things are always compatible, and i believe that trying to mediate conflicts between these two purposes will likely always be unsatisfying.

Mordy, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:37 (Yesterday) Permalink

yeah you kind of can't have preferential treatment without a corresponding discrimination

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:39 (Yesterday) Permalink

israel wasn't created bc the world needed another vaguely western democracy in the middle east. it was created bc the jews needed a nation state.

Mordy, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:41 (Yesterday) Permalink

here's a provocative argument on the topic:
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/180022/anti-israel-protests-make-the-case-for-israel

Mordy, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:06 (14 hours ago) Permalink

lol @ anyone in berlin calling jewish people cowards

LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:18 (14 hours ago) Permalink

There are just so many double standards it makes me dizzy. Jews can't have a Jewish state, but Muslims can have several Muslim countries. Jews can't kill women and children, because they cede the high moral ground, but others can with much less criticism, because ... they never had any moral high ground? Nearly every country's boundaries were formed by war or decree, but Israel is the only one whose boundaries are worth protesting over. Israel must make concessions of land, laws, battle, but others don't. Israel must take pains not to kill anyone but a select few, but others - including Western countries - kill thousands with impunity, and stifle who knows how many with sanctions. The US can't aid Israel, but Iran and Saudi Arabia and who know who else can aid its enemies?

I dunno. I asked as a joke, sort of, but is Israel allowed to win? They can't do it by battle; clearly they could do much worse than they are doing now, but even that is too much for many. Clearly they can't gain land, only lose it. And even existing as Jewish state? No way, because ... Jews. Because even if Israel gave up every last inch of what's been demanded of them, to the letter - compromise! - Hamas and others would still happily lob missiles and rockets at Jews until they run off back to Europe.

The Hamas charter could not be more explicit in its goals. This is a war between Israel and Hamas. The question is how to handle Hamas, because if it's not done now, it will have to be done at some point. Otherwise, there will never be peace of any sort.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:32 (14 hours ago) Permalink

i promise you that when bibi establishes treblinka 2.0 in shuja'iyeh i will be the first to bring out the holocaust comparisons

― Mordy, Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:08 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

somehow I doubt you'd be the first

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:42 (13 hours ago) Permalink

but you're right, it's not a concentration camp it's a ghetto.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:43 (13 hours ago) Permalink

In the early 1940s some 100,000 Jews and Romanis died of engineered starvation and disease in the Warsaw Ghetto, another quarter of a million were transported to the death camps, and when the Ghetto rose up it was liquidated, the last 50,000 residents being either shot on the spot or sent to be murdered more hygienically in Treblinka. Don’t mistake me: every Palestinian killed in Gaza is a Palestinian too many, but there is not the remotest similarity, either in intention or in deed – even in the most grossly mis-reported deed – between Gaza and Warsaw.

Mordy, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:45 (13 hours ago) Permalink

not the remotest similarity?

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:48 (13 hours ago) Permalink

yeah could we all just slap a moratorium on any holocaust related analogied when hamfistedly accusing Israel of their crimes? there's enough room to discuss their actions in the conflict without really shitty hyperbole

building a desert (art), Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:49 (13 hours ago) Permalink

if there's another term for apartheid state regions that are under blockade I'll use it. South Africans surely had one.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:51 (13 hours ago) Permalink

The Nazi ghettos being extremely bad does not mean that the term ceases to exist. There were ghettos before and after the holocaust.

Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 24 July 2014 00:54 (13 hours ago) Permalink

Hm I wonder where that word ghetto comes from.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 24 July 2014 02:54 (11 hours ago) Permalink

Also Josh fwiw I cant think of a single explicitly muslim (and not just majority muslim) state, as in officially a country for muslims, that isnt a disaster. Kinda feeds into my point about the desirability of separatiob of church and state.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 24 July 2014 02:56 (11 hours ago) Permalink

Fuckin phone

Οὖτις, Thursday, 24 July 2014 02:57 (11 hours ago) Permalink

And I dunno about double standards all my comments on this thread have been specifically about Israel, I havent defended any similar behavior by other countries. Thx for strawmanning tho.

Οὖτις, Thursday, 24 July 2014 03:02 (11 hours ago) Permalink

It was nothing personal, just talking general.

The double standard I keep encountering elsewhere in particular implies there should be no Jewish state, or it is wrong to have a Jewish state, or any religious states, yet rarely note to any degree of passion the preponderance of de facto or explicit Muslim states, many of which, incidentally, came to be that way through war, or expulsion of its undesirables, or through artificial construct at the hands of international Western state builders. The criticisms against Israel, a generally socially liberal society, rarely seem to fall with any real volume on countries far more explicitly theocratic than Israel, who treat their minorities and women (and, hell, children) like shit, who embrace capital punishment like entertainment, who murder (yes, murder) their own people en masse. Which of course does not give Israel a pass for its various infractions, but I do find it disturbing that Israel often comes first in line for the placard waving protests, the divestment calls, et al. Again, it's a perpetual lose-lose scenario by way of what smells like propaganda. Israel is a barbaric bully, yet hardly comes close to the barbarism of Assad. Israel is a religious state, yet one that does not tell non-Jews to convert, move or die like Isis just did to Mosul Christians. And so on. And I think, again, this is in no small part due to the conflation of the quest for a Palestinian state (noble enough) with the war with Hamas, an extremist group whose hatred is endless and whose refusal to compromise is literally written into its charter.'

Seriously: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

I read this, and I don't give a shit who they are fighting with. I don't want them to win. It's a problem proliferating all over the place: extremists scuttling the prospect of peace. And while some may accuse Israel of extremism, I've never read anything formalized from them quite as onerous as that Hamas charter.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 24 July 2014 03:36 (11 hours ago) Permalink

Sorry, drinking a bit, but also, per the thread, really ill at ease. Think the people burning down synagogues and throwing rocks at Rabbis really, ultimately give a shit what I think about Israel?

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 24 July 2014 03:37 (11 hours ago) Permalink

Any discussion along those lines would presumably have to take into account the 35 year campaign against Iran being an Islamic state which included arming one of its secular neighbours to the teeth and largely turning a blind eye when they launched a war of aggression that killed around a million people. From what I recall at the time, even as their kids were being slaughtered, Iran was still painted as being at fault. Would also have to look at the complicity of governments and indifference of the public when democratic governments in Egypt and Turkey were removed in military coups for being too religious.

Israel, rightly in many respects, models itself as a modern, liberal state in its calls to international support. It holds itself out as an 'oasis of democracy in a sea of tyranny', etc. You can't do that and not expect criticism when you fall way short of those ideals by perpetuating the longest illegal occupation in modern history and launching punitive bombing raids on occupied territory. Mordy is absolutely right that substantially more opprobrium and self criticism should be directed at other "western" states, like the US, for drones, etc, though.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Thursday, 24 July 2014 04:55 (9 hours ago) Permalink

iran was doing a plenty good job slaughtering it's own kids

the late great, Thursday, 24 July 2014 05:00 (9 hours ago) Permalink

its

the late great, Thursday, 24 July 2014 05:01 (9 hours ago) Permalink

anyway that's not relevant

the late great, Thursday, 24 July 2014 05:03 (9 hours ago) Permalink

Josh otm.

Van Horn Street, Thursday, 24 July 2014 06:26 (8 hours ago) Permalink

really good thread imo

your favourite misread ILX threads (darraghmac), Thursday, 24 July 2014 06:58 (7 hours ago) Permalink


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