Is this anti-semitism?

I completely agree, gyac.

it matters bc different kinds of antisemitism require different efforts. attempts to make circumcision or kosher/halal illegal require one set of efforts (that may involve allying with the muslim community), whereas antisemitic murders from the north african community may require a totally different set of efforts and alliances. obv it matters to political interests as well (no one wants *their* political side to be discrediting themselves w/ antisemitic acts) tho that piece matters less to me personally.

I'm sure there are neo-Nazis in Paris, but the anti-semitism I experience (well, not against me, I'm not Jewish, but against friends) is from les arabes.

who are not actually arab. but whatever.

ok pomenitul but does that matter to the solution, to combatting it? maybe it does! but... maybe it doesn't? maybe antisemites just need to feel deeply ashamed, no matter who they are. i realise i'm thinking simplistically but i feel like this is a trap, getting led down a rabbithole of who did it, what was the colour of their skin, aha it's just as i suspected, they always do this etc.

xxp I think this is an interesting point. If they were Romanian, would you have the fash making veiled and not so veiled threats to/about the community? If they were Romanian, would you have people dissecting problems you probably understand yourself 10000x more, usually coming to the solution “it’s bad and (by implication) so are they”? Would people even give a fuck about your thoughts about the roots of and solutions to the problem?

As Mordy says, the different ways that antisemitism is grounded in different communities means that the cultural context of each act matters, if we seek solutions to it.

TH, that's the French, Republican way of looking at it, and on one level – that of an impartial ideal – it makes perfect sense. But I'm personally not convinced that the absolutist, 'we are all one' approach to law and citizenship is the nec plus ultra of anti-discrimination (at the other end you've got the US model, with its own unique set of drawbacks, so I'd argue for something in between whenever possible).

If they were Romanian, would you have the fash making veiled and not so veiled threats to/about the community? If they were Romanian, would you have people dissecting problems you probably understand yourself 10000x more, usually coming to the solution “it’s bad and (by implication) so are they”? Would people even give a fuck about your thoughts about the roots of and solutions to the problem?

I mean, people usually don't give a fuck about what Romanians think about anything, unless it has to do with the Roma, so definitely not.

By the same token, I would say the most useful solutions are going to come from French Muslim communities. The usefulness of white French (and non-French) gentiles applying racism to the issue is very limited.

That seems a little extreme to me. As much as I roll my eyes when such and such is accused of 'communautarisme', there's still something to be said for tackling the problem as a colourless nation (and even as a continent), irrespective of one's near or distant origins. It's hard to know where to place the cursor, though.

Is it racism to note the prevalence of anti-semitism amongst French Muslims?

Not necessarily, but paired with some of your posts here and in the French elections thread, your motivations could be seen as questionable!

xp well quite, but the reality of the situation is that France is an incredibly racist country! I can’t pretend I know what the solution is either, but anyone creating room for the fash in the debate because they perceive their interests to be aligned in some way is always going to be a bit sus in my view, sorry. (Not saying this is what you’re doing).

Racism, including antisemitism, at a structural and institutional level has throughout history frequently been amenable to playing different sets of "others" off against each other as a strategic movie as far as I can see

was it racist for ppl to use the smashing of graves in blackley as an opportunity to decry muslim antisemitism when it turned out to be some drunk teenagers? looking into it there was a third jewish cemetery vandalized last year in urmston which I think puts paris in the shade. in at least two of the cases the ppl managing the cemeteries hedged their bets as to whether it was random vandalism or not but there's a large, visible orthodox community here and it seems like too incredible a coincidence

strategic movie? thanks autocorrect

the reality of the situation is that France is an incredibly racist country! I can’t pretend I know what the solution is either, but anyone creating room for the fash in the debate because they perceive their interests to be aligned in some way is always going to be a bit sus in my view, sorry. (Not saying this is what you’re doing).

Yeah, it's a fine line, and I usually assume ill intent when dealing with white French people whose opinions are a little too ambiguous for comfort. That said (I've mentioned this before elsewhere), I have been repeatedly insulted by French dudes of Arab descent because I'm white and sound French, and my wife (who is white and from France) has also had to endure racist (and sexist, of course) slurs for many years on account of her skin colour. So it's incredibly difficult to talk about this in a way that is simultaneously non-bigoted and reflective of reality. For what it's worth, French politicians have done an extremely poor job of it. A sad state of affairs.

among my motivations on a daily scale: for people to live without fear of street crime. I've offered no particular means to that, simply observing what I take to be sociological facts. If that makes me a fascist in the eyes of ILX, I suppose I'll own the title, but it would indicate a quite banal level of discourse here.

man, there was another incident of jewish graves being vandalised in whitefield in 2014, which makes four incidents in five years (whitefield, blackley, urmston, whitefield again). I suspect this may have got more coverage if it had happened in euler's neighbourhood

I take your point, but the latest two French cases both happened in whitey-white parts of the country and still got significant coverage (yesterday's even more so due to today's march against antisemitism). Perhaps the UK press is lagging behind its continental counterpart when it comes to this particular issue, because four incidents in five years isn't nothing.

But maybe there's something to be said for not turning it into a spectacle. A lot of these little shits/sick adult fucks want nothing more than national attention.

I think it's shocking & am surprised there's not been more made of it. there has been coverage locally and in jewish media of the vandalism and of a demonstration against antisemitism that took place in the city centre a few months with a few hundred people, but I am not aware of much national coverage (although things outside of london and the south east not being covered by the national media is the norm). I am also not convinced that media coverage is always a good thing but it seems to be rising without much coverage

https://jewishjournal.com/online/294383/downtown-mural-prompts-concern-of-anti-semitism/

i'm going to say definitely

Yeah that’s a yes

what's interesting is that i could've imagined someone accidentally using jewish stars (amid all the non-jewish stars) but what made it obvious was ironically when "he said on his Instagram page in 2018 that it was inspired by a trip he had taken 'to Palestine some years back.'" since that made the association with jews explicit even if "anti-Israel" isn't the same as "anti-semitism" here the former *is* a giveaway for the latter.

a single pro-mural comment from an occasional counterpunch writer and obvious anti-semite there.

The Jewish people has always been plagued by Bad Jews, who undermine it from within. In America, those Bad Jews largely vote Democrat.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 8, 2011

wow i should feign cynicism but i'm legitimately shocked he said that

what a prick

Seems American Jews are overwhlemingly bad then. :(

a single pro-mural comment from an occasional counterpunch writer and obvious anti-semite there.

― omar little, Tuesday, February 26, 2019 9:05 PM (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

counterpunch also used to publish this guy, who is a holocaust denier as well as an anti-semite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir

The Jewish people has always been plagued by Bad Jews, who undermine it from within. In America, those Bad Jews largely vote Democrat.

These statements are so crazy bad that 'shocking' is a legit response. If you apply even the first glimmer of critical thinking to them they are nothing more than sinister-sounding, fact-free sludge dumped on Jews who vote for Democrats.

that shit honestly makes me hope ben shapiro would ___

and yeah it is shocking, i started shaking a little when i read it

apparently according to shapiro something like 70% of american jews are "bad jews"?

like the right everywhere always, the american and israeli rights believe that you can either be a stormtrooper for your nation or you can be a craven, stateless, will-sapping agent of a seditious internationalism

I'm surprised that you guys are surprised. Ben Shapiro is ebola for the mind.

It fits just fine with my impression of him.

@benshapiro stop talking shit lil boy

— Waka Flocka (@WakaFlocka) April 13, 2016

in a moment when there are far more loathsome public figures than anyone can possibly keep track of, ben shapiro stands out. not literally, since he's like four foot six. but figuratively, he stands out as being especially awful.

It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable. (1/2)

— Rep. Juan Vargas (@RepJuanVargas) March 4, 2019

pretty extraordinary that a democratic member of congress would say this second part

is it

meanwhile Jim Jordan referred to Tom Steyer as "Tom $teyer" on Twitter yesterday and it barely ruffled a feather. I feel like I'm taking extra crazypills with this one.

"Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable."

this is Omar's point. this is all so self defeating and completely stupid.

i'm not sure that "Tom $teyer" is antisemitic (i didn't even know the guy had a jewish parent until this blew up and it's unclear he identifies as jewish whatsoever - is "Bill Gate$" an antisemitic comment? is even "George $oro$?"), nb that i also wasn't sure that omar's initial comments about AIPAC were antisemitic either however i do feel like her "allegiance" to a foreign power comments are much more problematic.

tbc omar's point is not simply that we should be allowed to question the US-Israel relationship. her point is that pro-Israel activists and supporters bribe US congressmen to betray & undermine US interests out of loyalty to israel. people think that's antisemitic bc in addition to writing out any kind of legitimate political expression of pro-Israel sentiment as being compatible w/ US support + loyalty (like as if they were normal ppl who love the US and love Israel and consequently want the two to have a close relationship), she is insinuating that there is something malevolent, secret + sinister about pro-Israel support in the US. note that one can argue against the US-Israel relationship and against Israel without these insinuations.

did she say all (or any?) of that or is that your inference?

she said: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”

isn't it also possible that different people have different conceptions of what constitutes "US interests"? like to Omar maybe that means prioritizing human rights, including those of Palestinians.

yes, and she can argue that we should have different interests without suggesting that ppl who want the US to support Israel are pushing for allegiance to a foreign country. just say "i don't think our interests are served by having such a close relationship with israel" -- her approach has been to characterize the support as itself problematic and coming from loyalty to another country. when she advocates for palestinians does that mean that her is pushing for allegiance to palestinians? or that's only when someone is advocating for Israel?

but the quote you cited above doesn't say anything about allegiance to a foreign country at the expense of this one. I don't understand why it can't be read as criticizing dual allegiance to one's own country and to Israel and simply wondering why it's deemed almost universally acceptable to offer unconditional support for the latter country while it is engaging in apartheid. it's just kind of maddening when we have real debate and division in this country over the things WE are doing to marginalized people but for some reason when Israel is doing it, a whole bunch of people are a lot less outraged.