Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2648 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and, again, completely ineffectual

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

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

and yeah its actual effects on intellectual discourse are inherently negative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And still smacks of stifling ideas you disagree with.

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

yeah I'm treating that as a separate issue

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

that was reparations ffs

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

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

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

2 weeks pass...

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

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

what evil lurks in the hearts of instagram

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

3 weeks pass...

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

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

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

um, care to fill us in?

my jaw left (Hurting 2), Friday, 31 October 2014 18:23 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

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