Is this anti-semitism?

xp have=haven

and xp equal Jews and Israel

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.

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

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.

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

lol @ anyone in berlin calling jewish people cowards

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.

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

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

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.

not the remotest similarity?

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

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

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

Hm I wonder where that word ghetto comes from.

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.

Fuckin phone

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

its

anyway that's not relevant

Josh otm.

really good thread imo

As Israel’s assault on Gaza intensifies, it is not anti-Semitic to say: not in my name

And so goes the vicious paradox. We criticize Israel because it has enough of a moral compass to be susceptible to criticism. And yet, lack of moral compass is one of the most common accusations lobbed at Israel; they're barbaric, they're genocidal, they're murderous. But were Israel really, fully any of those things - because we all know they have better/bigger weapons/armies - well, then, there goes the moral high ground. Which of course Israel does not and never did have, anyway, because etc. etc.

Once again, Israel not only can't win, but apparently is not allowed to win, either. If it "won" with no bloodshed, it still loses. If it "wins" through diplomacy, it still loses. If it wins through attrition, it still loses. If it wins by any historical standard of victory, it loses, because it long ago lost the propaganda war that simultaneously positions Israel as having a higher moral standard and no moral standing. Perhaps similar to the curious strain of anti-Semitism that claims the Holocaust was both a fabrication but also the fault of the Jews, that the Jews are Nazis but also that the Holocaust was "a lie invented by the Zionists."

Meanwhile, brutality on a much, much larger scale plays out with impunity around the globe. Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Mali, Sudan, not to mention all the countries and places so far gone no one even talks about them anymore. Are people still into Tibet? What's up with Somalia? Etc.

Hm I wonder where that word ghetto comes from.

― Οὖτις, Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:54 AM (13 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Venice.

I think it comes from Elvis.

Israel is winning. Massively. And has been since 1948. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. As it is nonsense to suggest the west doesn't 'critisize' other - islamic - religious states. While there might not be demonstrations against Iran in the street, the west are sanctioning the regime, everyone was fully on the side of the green revolution, and Iranian scientists has a tendency to drop dead in mysterious ways. The rage against Israel comes out on 'the street' because it doesn't come out in politics.

That and anti-semitism. I don't want to deny that there is a massive problem with anti-semitism in Europe. Even in Denmark, it has gotten to the point where certain schools recommend that Jewish children don't attend. But the fact that the public is more mad at Israel than at Iran is not anti-semitic in and of itself.

Like, the west sent troops to Mali, forced an end to Sudan. It's not as if anybody just went 'eh, who cares'.

separating criticism of israel from anti-semitism is easier said then done, esp since israel's formation is itself a product of anti-semitism, and resistance to israel starting in 48 is only marginally ever about palestinian land rights (though it has become more about that in recent years) and almost entirely about the arabic nation states pushing the jews into the sea (after expelling them from their homes). this is something i was discussing w/ a very left-wing friend last week- while many western pro-palestinian leftists /are/ i believe primarily concerned about issues of human rights, the movement they have hitched their wagon to is historically an anti-jewish movement, aka radical islamism (and also to a lesser extent anti-semitic USSR 'communism'). you can't just wave your hand and be like "i'm only talking about X not Y." there is a pre-existing context.

Even in Denmark, it has gotten to the point where certain schools recommend that Jewish children don't attend.

WTF!?!?!?!

Oh, I should probably point out: Because they are majority-muslim schools, and the kids might get in trouble in the schoolyard.

lol does not make that better imo

The schools aren't anti-semitic. And it's kinda a moot point, since everyone else always pull out their kids of schools when they think there are too many muslims.

But no, it's not good. Not good at all.

i'd find this easier to discuss rationally if every day didn't bring news of another dozen dead children

one way you can tell that, at the very least, the arab street's resistance to israel is still primarily about anti-semitism (and also righting the historical wrong of having the arabic conquest of palestine overturned) is that rafah remains closed from the egyptian side, lebanon and syria still refuse to integrate their refugee populations, etc. it's a cliche at this point but true imo to say that arab treatment of the palestinians has historically been worse and more cynical than israeli treatment of the palestinians.

otm. and always important to remember.

and of course, also lebanese christian treatment of palestinians.

like i wonder if qatar or SA or UAE or whomever offered to accept gazan refugees how many would move (they won't tho - bc their position is the use of unsettled palestinian refugees as a tool against israel). nb also the reason why UNRWA is a separate organization from UNHCR. bc their have a different mandate - not resettling palestinian refugees but maintaining their refugee status quo.

@Josh

Yep, definitely no-one has spent the last 10+ years talking about and opposing the violence brought about by America's neo-colonialist adventures in Iraq. No one. And no one talks about those other places either. Yes violence and war continues in those places, but to imply that it goes on there "with impunity" as if the opposite is the case in I/P is simply false. Aside from a number of grass-roots movements and the withdrawal of several countries' diplomatic missions, what exactly have been the negative repercussions for Israel? It's not like politicians in the West are proposing liberal interventions into Israel as they do with Syria and Libya, etc.

Bonus points for comparing a 60+ year illegal occupation which has lead to thousands of deaths and untold displacement displaced (more than 2000 civilians killed during Cast Lead and this op btw) - which make your attempt to minimise them in scale laughable, with the civil war in Ukraine which has lasted a few months. And of course no one is talking about that either, that certainly hasn't been the focus of near constant media attention since Maidan started and politicians and the press are definitely not calling for sanctions against Russia.

This is first class whatboutery. I mean imagine if I, as a Russian, tried to defend our gov't and to deflect from the fact that we've been supplying the separatists with weapons by pointing to NATO/the US' funding and arming of factions in, idk, Syria..."but, but...this bad thing shouldn't matter because there is a bad thing happening over there!". It's absurd, and you'd call bullshit on it, rightfully.

I don't think the point is deflection or 'whatboutery'. This is the anti-semitism thread and I think it's an appropriate question to ask how much jew hatred is animating the pro-Palestinian movement - especially as explicit anti-semitism + anti-jewish violence has emerged directly from that movement. Part of answering that question is asking how response to Israel compares to responses to other global conflicts. There are understandable reasons why Israel holds such a locus of fascination for Western culture (I think I listed off a bunch of reasons above) but I also think it's clear that anti-semitism plays a role as well. If anything, it's 'whatboutery' to dismiss concerns about anti-semitism + the inordinate focus of the world of Israel by dismissing such concerns as an attempt to change the subject. When it comes to Israel, antisemitism is not changing the subject - it is the subject.

If I recall correctly, no one went on destroying russian commerces after what happened in Georgia and Ukraine. I haven't heard as many calls to boycott Russia, or even photos of dead infants all over twitter etc.

Calls for boycotting Russia are a dime a dozen these days. And you don't see photos of dead infants as much because the separatists/Russia aren't killing nearly as much children as Israel is?

@ Mordy, I agree that its important to look at the role of (and take action against) anti-Semitism in these movements, and in wider contexts, absolutely.

But I really don't see Josh's posts as doing that because to me they read as trying to portray the Israeli gov't as the recipient of disproportionate criticism while claiming that other states are being spared from it, which is simply not true. In those *other* cases its not only criticism that is rightfully directed at them, but often economic sanctions and (arguably less "rightly" in some cases) military intervention.

wtf, there are actual sanctions against Russia?