Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I saw this headline and expected to read on and be saddened by the knock-on effects of recent anti-American and anti-Israeli feeling. But on examining it, I don't think I think much of the questions in the survey, or rather the interpretation being put on them.

Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” and 17% did not consider Jews compatriots.. Sure, that's anti-semitism pure and simple.

Asked if Jews in their countries had a “mentality and lifestyle” different than other citizens, 46% said yes.

Is this? Not all Jewish people, no. But if they choose to participate in Jewish culture, then yeah, why not? I'd say the same about any cultural group, including those that I belong to. Nothing wrong with difference, or acknowledging it. I thought that was what a multi-cultural society was about,

I'm not even sure the money question is a surefire way of exposing bigotry. 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.

Anti-Semitic Europe signalled by survey

Nearly half of those asked in a poll on anti-Semitism in Europe yesterday said Jews in their nations were different, and more than one-third said Jews should stop “playing the victim” for the Holocaust.
The poll by the Ipso research institute was conducted in nine countries, including Britain.
The poll, released on the eve of a Holocaust memorial day in many European countries, came after Jewish leaders claimed anti-Semitism was rising across the continent.
Asked if Jews in their countries had a “mentality and lifestyle” different than other citizens, 46% said yes.
About 40.5% said Jews in their country had “a particular relationship with money” and 35.7% said Jews “should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago”.
Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” and 17% did not consider Jews compatriots.
“Obviously the virus of anti-Semitism is far more resilient and determined than we might have thought in the past,” said Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee.
“What’s more amazing than the percentage of people who hold those opinions is the percentage of people willing to express them,” he added.
France refuted Israeli charges of rising anti-Semitism, saying attacks on Jews and Jewish property had dropped by 36% last year rather than doubled, as Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs has asserted.
The Interior Ministry reacted a day after Natan Sharansky said 47% of all anti-Semitic attacks in Europe last year occurred in France.–AP

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:35 (fifteen years ago) link

It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:39 (fifteen years ago) link

I've often thought the biggest problem with the often nebulous and knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism is that there is an extri special word for it (ie it ain't called Anti-Judaism). Islamophobic is incleasingly being brought in to mean a similar kind of thing for Islam - though certainly not as loaded. But there is no real offical word for hating Christians.

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:46 (fifteen years ago) link

It's not vile to be desperately upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians is it, given the circumstances of the founding of Israel from a political standpoint? Admittedly, the founding of Israel on the ground kinda started to whole treatment of Palestinaians thing thing, but...

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:48 (fifteen years ago) link

Hmm, the Holocaust one I'm not entirely convinced about, Enrique. Some Jewish people argue, not that it is time to forget, but time to get out of a victim-casting obsession with past persecution. Not because they are self-haters, but because they think it helps Jewish culture move on, and because in certain hands, the Holocaust issue is almost used as a trump card in all arguments, which is obviously irritating.

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:50 (fifteen years ago) link

It's a bit vile to say that Israel only exists because the Jews 'used' the Holocaust as leverage, which is what a lot of revisionist leftists do in their attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a nation. In its less nuanced uses, this is what the Finkelstein book does. Obviousy it shouldn't be used to justify current hostilities against the Palestinians, but I can understand why it was used back in the 1940s, when the area was a British mandate-colony.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:52 (fifteen years ago) link

What we learned from the Holocaust is that it is a very wrong idea to separate people out according to religion/sexuality (remember Catholics and homosexuals also suffered there), place them in internment camps and then kill them. What we learned from apartheid is that it is wrong to separate people out by skin colour and deny them access to cities and areas and basic civil rights as if on a whim. I would suggest to Israelis of a 'pioneer' bent to learn from the Holocaust and apartheid the lesson about onetime victims relishing their turn on bully duty, and to find a way to resist.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:00 (fifteen years ago) link

i thought it said 'jews should stop "playing the violin" for the holocaust'... i wish they had worded it that way because i don't think nearly as many people would be in favour of stopping violins!

jeremy jordan (cruisy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:01 (fifteen years ago) link

Is it racist to say that a religion is intolerant? It would certianly be racist to say that Jews were intolerant.

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (fifteen years ago) link

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (fifteen years ago) link

How much of the fear and mistrust of Judaism comes from it being a non-evangelical religion (menkos Jews 4 Jebus notwithstanding).

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:05 (fifteen years ago) link

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.


Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:10 (fifteen years ago) link

You're right, Enrique, about no-one calling you racist for taking issue with Christianity's dogma on sexuality. But what about the statement that Judaism might be about love and charity in principle but is is not interpreted like that? Do you mean actual Jews don't act out of love and charity? Or do you mean gentiles don't regard Judaism as about love and charity?

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:14 (fifteen years ago) link

Pete, that's not at the heart of it at all. The Romans/Greeks didn't really 'get' monotheism, but it's the crapness of Christianity and its prostletysing that created a great deal of anti-Semitic sentiment, what with chasing the money-lenders out of the temple yada yada and people judging ALL Jews as usurers/cash-obsessed/cleverer than. I'm pretty bloody thankful I went to school with thousands of Jews, because they had in their favour a belief in the power of learning and education being a pathway to aspirations. Their parents were the best agitators for getting stuff done for everyone in my town that I've ever experienced.

Again: all bigotry is a manifestation of the bigot's insecurity, usually unsubstantiated.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:18 (fifteen years ago) link

So, has anybody got any idea why someone would say that Judaism is intolerant? (I'm not asking if any of you are racist, I'm just wondering if anyone has any examples or good guesses about purported Judaic intolerance... And I mean the religion, not the state or Isreal or somesuch)

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:21 (fifteen years ago) link

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I was thinking that the idea of not wanting to spread "the good news", being a closed community pretty much marks you out as The Other, but certainly the other factors you point out seem a fair bit more convincing.

How has Christianity dealt with the Jesus as king of Jews thing?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (fifteen years ago) link

Dave, you've already said it's intolerant of several things (like allowing you to use the car on a Friday). You also explained why this doesn't mean the same as 'intolerant' to you. I understand that, but 'intolerant' means different things to different people.

Perhaps the main point of this thread was that I hate ambiguously worded questionnaires, esp. if they're deliberately so.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:26 (fifteen years ago) link

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (fifteen years ago) link

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (fifteen years ago) link

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. 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 (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (fifteen years ago) link

good point, what about forcible removal of non-jews and 'pioneer' settling though?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:35 (fifteen years ago) link

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (fifteen years ago) link

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

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (fifteen years ago) link

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

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

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 (fifteen years ago) link

(You could also unbookmark the thread but presumably you have it bookmarked so you get a more obvious alert that it's been updated.)

totally unnecessary bewbz of exploitation (DJP), Monday, 9 December 2019 16:41 (three days ago) link

Ah gotcha thanks.

xyzzzz__, Monday, 9 December 2019 16:44 (three days ago) link

This seems bad.

President Trump will sign an executive order defining Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, thus bolstering the Education Department's efforts to stamp out "Boycott Israel" movements on college campuses https://t.co/0avw7eseMc

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) December 10, 2019



The order will effectively interpret Judaism as a nationality, not just a religion, to trigger a federal law penalizing colleges and universities deemed to be shirking their responsibility to foster an open climate for minority students, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the matter before the announcement.

gyac, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 00:44 (yesterday) link

fucking ridiculous

Swilling Ambergris, Esq. (silby), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 00:51 (yesterday) link

Horseshit

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 00:57 (yesterday) link

if this flies, is saudi arabia the official country of islam, next?

recently watched hasan minhaj's netflix show about how many muslims have a very conflicted view of the country due to the requisite religious pilgrimage and the fact it's inexorably linked to the land, and therefore the government

sorry for non-anti-semitism post, but my brain started spinning

a u.s. government department (mh), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 01:00 (yesterday) link

what the fuuuuuuuuck is that all about

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 02:57 (yesterday) link

I think we know, and that it’s the end game of multiple political threads that have culminated since Netanyahu took office

a u.s. government department (mh), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 02:59 (yesterday) link

I had to persuade my wife last night that this was about BDS and not some neo-Nazi plot to register American Jews as foreign agents

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 16:37 (yesterday) link

you are correct - the NYT misrepresented the issue entirely. this bill is not a threat to american jews and has been in the works since the obama admin. it also does not define jews as a nationality.

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 16:37 (yesterday) link

don't get me wrong I still think it's stupid

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 16:39 (yesterday) link

I think she had plenty if reason to worry based on how it was reported. Of course that reporting was totally wrong and caused a huge amount of worry for no reason.

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 16:40 (yesterday) link

I’m in Israel now and an American -Israeli citizen told me what he’d rather the USA do is allow USA passports of Americans born in Jerusalem to give the birthplace as Israel rather than just Jerusalem.

L'assie (Euler), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:24 (yesterday) link

OK, not to belabor this as it is clearly just a lot of hype from the NYT, but non-zionist Jews born in the US may have a slightly different take in this stuff.

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:33 (yesterday) link

tbc if your contention is that this is designed to tamper down on the free speech of BDS advocates on campuses you are probably right about the intent (tho the jury is still out on whether it'll actually do that). if you're one of the many jewish ppl on my fb timeline concerned that this is the start of a stalinist or nazi style crackdown on jews by classifying them as a nationality before rounding them up into camps -- you have been bamboozled :(

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:36 (yesterday) link

This was misreported as being about establishing a Jewish nationality for US citizens. Given that the initial report was wrong, I agree with you. Had that report been correct, I'd be on the side of your FB friends.

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:40 (yesterday) link

even if the initial report was correct i think reading an antisemitic threat into a bill promoting by jewish activists and designed to protect jews on campus would be a strong reach but as u say it's irrelevant now

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:41 (yesterday) link

promoted* by

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:42 (yesterday) link

executive orders are not bills

Swilling Ambergris, Esq. (silby), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:52 (yesterday) link

you're right i misspoke

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:53 (yesterday) link

I’m in Israel now and an American -Israeli citizen told me what he’d rather the USA do is allow USA passports of Americans born in Jerusalem to give the birthplace as Israel rather than just Jerusalem.

― L'assie (Euler), Wednesday, December 11, 2019 9:24 AM (twenty-eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

edward said had to request to have his passport amended so it didn't say that he was born in "jerusalem, israel" (his point being that he was not born in israel, but mandatory palestine)

#FBPIRA (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:57 (yesterday) link

he definitely wasn't born in mandatory palestine unless he was born before 1949 but maybe he meant he considers himself born in palestine

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:58 (yesterday) link

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

Swilling Ambergris, Esq. (silby), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:58 (yesterday) link

lol sorry i misread that i thought he was talking about some friend named edward

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:59 (yesterday) link

tbf I did too for a second lol

Swilling Ambergris, Esq. (silby), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 17:59 (yesterday) link

any link to this? bc i'm wondering why said's passport would say jerusalem, israel since israel didn't control jerusalem until 67?

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 18:05 (yesterday) link

or was said born in west jerusalem and btwn 48 and 67 west jerusalem did get "jerusalem, israel" printed on them?

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 18:06 (yesterday) link

it was in an interview or talk, i think i'll find it hard to find. he was talking about getting a new US passport in the 1980/90s.

#FBPIRA (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 18:07 (yesterday) link

current state department policy has been to not write jerusalem, israel - i wonder if it was different in the 80s and was changed. i'd be curious to know that history.

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 18:09 (yesterday) link

i'll try and find out when/where the interview is from. think i have it on my phone

#FBPIRA (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 18:16 (yesterday) link

lolling a bit at Edward Said as "Edward said" as in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0hFQdEUQKM

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 20:00 (yesterday) link

Edward Said, I'm done with Israel...

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 20:13 (yesterday) link

What does the bit of Trump legislation actually do?

Never changed username before (cardamon), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 21:54 (yesterday) link

I say legislation because I'm not up on the difference between a bill and an executive order being a brit

Never changed username before (cardamon), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 21:55 (yesterday) link

legislation is passed by Congress and is legally binding. Presidential executive orders can be rescinded/revised at any time and only direct federal agencies that are directly within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 21:57 (yesterday) link

Aha thanks for that.

I've seen a lot of strong opinions about the order on my fb feed ... Will it actually stop students discussing Palestine or criminalise the teaching of Palestinian history? I presume what I've read to this effect is hyperbole but wonder about its actual impact.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 22:05 (yesterday) link

it will not

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 22:10 (yesterday) link

actual impact likely to be very negligible tbh, mostly it will just serve as legal cover for academic institutions that are eager to go after anti-Israeli speech on campus

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 22:12 (yesterday) link

there will eventually be a court case where someone challenges it, most likely

mh, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 22:26 (yesterday) link

Xp I mean, that might not be 'negligible' ... but I suppose the actual impact of the EO depends on what specific institutions use it for, and how they define 'anti-Israeli'.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 22:28 (yesterday) link

the good thing about the EO is that jewish students who experience bigotry will have protections under title vi like other minority groups (since title vi doesn't include religious discrimination). bc it uses the IHRA standards for defining antisemitism there is concern/hope that this could open up antisemitism charges against pro-bds students who use virulent language against israel. presumably it would have to be directed at jewish students explicitly and the fringe case would be like if palestinian activists started chanting "from the river to the sea" at a group of jewish students.

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 22:37 (yesterday) link

So Jewish students will have protections that Muslim students won't have?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 23:00 (yesterday) link

This interacts in an interesting way with the ongoing 'campus free speech' discussion. I can imagine people who normally go one way on that going a different way on this one (i.e. people normally in favour of restrictions on hate speech saying those BDS students are being censored and this is wrong; people normally opposed being in favour for this).

Related question, do that BDS group actually promote the destruction of Israel as such? Again this is something I see a lot of shouting back and forth on and never got to the bottom of. Am aware of the issue whereby boycotts of Israel for x y or z reason that don't also boycott China etc are double standards.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Wednesday, 11 December 2019 23:31 (yesterday) link

xp fred actually i should beg off the finer points of this i'm not a scholar of title vi and as likely to misrepresent it - i had read on vox explainer that title vi didn't already cover religion but i'm sure that's not true so maybe all this did was encourage ppl to use the IHRA standard? but then within the text it describes IHRA as "the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism" and then adds "In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment." this is why i feel like it's essentially a PR thing more than anything.

Mordy, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 23:38 (yesterday) link

this is why i feel like it's essentially a PR thing more than anything.

like 90% of Trump's "announcements" and executive orders. and like all PR stunts it's intended to play to the base/trigger the libs - and the internet falls for it every time.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 23:49 (yesterday) link

all HIS PR stunts

I meant to say

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 11 December 2019 23:50 (yesterday) link

maybe i'm simply reading the obvious out loud but if you associate a religion as a country aren't you by definition conflating church and state?

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Thursday, 12 December 2019 00:43 (five hours ago) link

It was nationality language not country but even that doesn’t appear in the EO

Mordy, Thursday, 12 December 2019 00:51 (five hours ago) link

anyways, i think this just happened and i'm reading now so join in
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/jared-kushner-donald-trump-anti-semitism

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Thursday, 12 December 2019 00:52 (five hours ago) link


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