Is this anti-semitism?

This is totally reminding me of the scene where the multitude are gathered outside Brian's bedroom window in Life of Brian and all answering (at length) in unison Brian's mother's questions.

(I'm talking in general again here, not about the movie I haven't seen.)

I think the Rabbi is oversimplifying, but I do think there's a lot to credit in the idea that blaming Jews -- the Jews, some Jews, any Jews, if the statement of blame makes a point of their Jewishness -- for Jesus's death, while forgiving the Romans, is tied in with the anti-Semitism that was a necessary prerequisite for the Holocaust.

[*] For instance, if the "let his blood be on our hands" line had some greater pertinence, and removing it would remove some of the good along with the bad -- which I don't think is the case -- then there'd be the question of what to do with it, whether a rephrasing could retain the good while still removing the bad, etc.

But nevertheless, some idiot notions were popularized more than others.

It's something I can't condemn yet sight-unseen, because when I wrote my own Jesus novel, it was something I kept having trouble with -- I'd like to think I'm not the least bit anti-Semitic, but when your protagonist opposes the status quo, and the status quo is Jewish, and his followers are more ardent about the opposition than he is, you do find some sentences need to be rewritten to avoid things that could be taken very wrongly.

(I can't help but suspect Gibson was less concerned about that than I was, but I don't know if that's fair.)

i'm not criticizing you tep

it's one thing to say 'oh i think this part of the gospels is more humane and more useful' but that doesn't mean the other parts are any less *there*--i dunno, there's this awful residual part of me that says that the acceptance of the authority--moral or otherwise--of the gospels is the central problem, and the problems of interpretation and selective application are just auxilliary problems

but you're right that's another topic

(x-post)

so i'll be happy to oblige

I'm not a Jew but I certainly take offense at this statement. What do you mean by 'ruining'? Does it ruin the state more than Christianity ruins other states, like Northern Ireland, for instance?

a) Israel is to blame.
b) No wait, the Jews are to blame.
c) Also, I forgot about those Palestinians in the Gaza strip.

Chow985 (5 days ago) Show Hide
+3 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
enjoy while you can, the jews of nbc are coming

Swaneaterman (5 days ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
i hope you meant jaws

SUP3RSOFA (4 days ago) Show Hide
+2 Poor comment Good comment
Marked as spam
Reply | Spam
pretty sure he meant to say jews

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/feb/18/caryl-churchill-gaza-play

w the f is with the tone of this? if the accusation was of straight-up racism... oh you get the idea.

"don't tell them about the dead babies"??

subtle stuff.

w the f is with the tone of this?

Lol Melanie Phillips, I believe.

Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her their names why not, tell her the whole world knows, why shouldn’t she know? tell her there’s dead babies, did she see babies? Tell her she’s got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I’m not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we’re the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can’t talk suffering to us. Tell her we’re the iron fist now, tell her it’s the fog of war, tell her we won’t stop killing them till we’re safe, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policeman, tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don’t care if the world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.

ay-ay-ay

xpost

would have held water before the guardian started publishing stuff by the likes of neil clark, richard seymour, tony naylor, etc.*

*joke that possibly not even dom will get

I know nothing about the content of the play but perhaps the accusation would be taken more seriously if it weren't coming from someone who talks about the "creeping Islamisation of Britain" on the same Spectator blog.

(xpost yeah okay that's pretty dodgy)

I dunno, I guess that excerpt strikes me as a totally unsurprising level of venom in the the context of suicide bombers, attacks etc, and the everyday vilainization of the other side. Isn't hatred basically universal?

I kind of feel like...I don't think attributing that voice to a Jewish is person is anti-Semitic, I think it would be foolhardy denial to pretend any group of people wouldn't have some notes of that kind of hatred in them under similar circumstances.

This article on it in The Independent is getting a bit of attention today. I've got to say that I'm (genuinely) a bit shocked by the readers' comments section

tl;dr

independent published a cartoon with ariel sharon actually eating babies though so they've kind of set out their stall as the paper for left-wing anti-semites.

not sure why it's thought to be a good idea to stage the caryl churchill with a play about germans refusing to accept responsibility for the holocaust, or why charlotte higgins think this context helps when "jews are the new nazis" is more or less the no. 1 meme among jew-haters.

Surely what Jacobson is saying is flat-out wrong, though. Critics of Israel (anti-Semitic or not) have nothing like the monopoly on political discourse that he claims, and isn't that his central claim? This isn't to deny that some criticism of Israel might be anti-Semitic.

how-j's perspective on the world is pretty much limited to the tonier parts of media london; within that, he's not wrong.

The view from Hampstead, you mean?

comments section on that article is a fucking shocker

I'm genuinely unclear about what's so shocking in that comment section! There's no point of view expressed there that I'm surprised to see.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A5FW0Zqf2LA/SMm_Ep8GXRI/AAAAAAAAA7g/OfpwL7X55Xk/s320/blahzay_blahzay_blah_blah_blah_1996_retail_cd-front.jpg

?

you're cool with the first comment being: "this guy has a jewish name, don't listen to him"?

Nice job on equating "I'm not shocked" to "I'm cool with", there.

if you don't find it shocking you should probably spend more time among people who aren't complete fucking goons.

"No, A pro Isreali Anti Palestinian Shoddy Second Rate Piece of 6th Grade Reporting is the name of my dog!"

enrique i cant really believe that youre shocked, given how often you talk about the anti-semitism prevalent in the british left

you should probably spend more time among people who aren't complete fucking goons.

What, ILX?

xpost shocking = offensive or distasteful, not neccessarily surprised

dude still insists on reading the guardian too, what can you do

Yes, because "I'm not shocked by opinions expressed in a newspaper comments thread on the fucking Internet, you know the place where we have Youtube comments thread and the like" translates to "I hang out with anti-Semites". Again, well done.

(xposts)

Do I just not really understand the background here? Because I see a lot of comments like this one, which seems extremely reasonable to me:

Are we allowed to criticise Israeli actions at all? I criticised British and American actions during the Iraq war. Am I unpatriotic? If criticism of Israel descends into anti-semitism then it must be checked and noted I agree but those who abhor violence must be allowed a voice.

That seems like kind of an obvious comment that doesn't address the issue.

By the way, I DON'T think it's anti-semitic to have Israeli parents say "Don't tell them about the baby-killing" or whatever. I think it's easy and cheap and not very subtle or interesting, but it's not anti-semitic to bring up the fact that Israeli actions resulted in the deaths of babies just because there happen to have been some blood libels in the middle ages involving jews and babies.