Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5797 of them)
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 (twenty years ago) link

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 (twenty years ago) link

anti-semitism hasn't had a day off since before WWII. It's not even had a significant surge since 9/11. Holocaust denial has been going on since the 1970s, particularly with the publication of "Did Six Million Die?" in 1974. There has been no significant lull in anti-semitism since.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:51 (twenty years ago) link

i disagree. there's been a great deal written since 9/11 about the prospect of a Palestinian state that co-joins "American-Judeo" as if it's some kind of world takeover conspiracy. Sure, it's not new, but it's become more pressing again.

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:59 (twenty years ago) link

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?

Lots of murderers believe killing is wrong, too.

I think calling these ethical viewpoints "opinions" trivializes the amount of importance we place on them. "Opinion" also implies some sort of choice in the matter, whereas we often perceive the truth of ethical standpoints so deeply that we cannot imagine thinking they are wrong, or relative, or whatever.

Clarke B., Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:30 (twenty years ago) link

Also, "kill someone, go to jail" as a code of law does not necessarily imply that killing is wrong, just that it should be punished. Of course these notions of wrongdoing and punishment are related in many contexts, but equating them will only cloud the discourse.

Clarke B., Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:34 (twenty years ago) link

Tottenham Hotspur are a big club.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:35 (twenty years ago) link

that's your opinion!

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 22:05 (twenty years ago) link

"Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust
and the persecutions of 50 years ago”

1) 50 years is not such a long time, after all, is it
2) It wasn't the first time
3) Of course Europe doesn't understand Jews - they killed 'em all

and here's the official chain of events for the start of this
conflict:

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3.

squirl plise, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:12 (twenty years ago) link

Yes, that's a very fairminded analysis. But lets not turn this into another Israel-Palestine thread.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:20 (twenty years ago) link

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 (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?


mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:43 (twenty years ago) link

I don't think it's okay to kill people if they agree with me or not! That makes no difference.


I reckon a lot of murderers think killing is wrong, but they do it anyway.

mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:44 (twenty years ago) link

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3

Mmmm! If only all those Palestinians who were displaced/denied the right to a homeland by step 2 could see things so lucidly, eh?

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 09:49 (twenty years ago) link

I know nothing about palestine etc etc, but just looking at those numbered points, step 3 can't be the start, because it was caused by step 2

(I'm saying nothing about the validity of the points, but just using maths style logic)

mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:00 (twenty years ago) link

Step 0: Jews promised this land in Genesis.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:04 (twenty years ago) link

So how do you plan on numbering the many historical steps between Palestine/Israel/the land of Canaan/the south western Levant/whatever you want to call it becoming the sacred homeland of the Jews and the twentieth century move of Jewish people to Palestine?

Amarga (Amarga), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:22 (twenty years ago) link

With a fiddle and a diddle and a song in his heart.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:28 (twenty years ago) link

Step -infinity: God made the Earth and the heavens. Fucker!

mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:34 (twenty years ago) link

Step 0: Jews promised this land in Genesis

er, isn't that Step 0: Jews promise themselves this land??

run it off (run it off), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:16 (twenty years ago) link

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 (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

Relativism has it that all beliefs are, well, relative. Against this is the idea that beliefs are either right or wrong, warranted or unwarranted, universalisable or merely partisan, and so on and so forth. I was suggesting that the 'belief' that murder is wrong is not a belief in the relativist sense of the word. On my side is the argument that killing must be wrong for everyone (not just those who believe killing is wrong - the relativist's error) or else you are left with the (relativist) situation that killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.

run it off (run it off), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:22 (twenty years ago) link

killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.


That's a bit clearer. Ta.

I think that killing is 'wrong'. Another person may disagree and think killing is 'not-wrong'. We would both be correct.


I think I'm right, but so does the other person. Whose to say which of us is correct? And who is to say that the person who decides which of us is correct is correct. And so on.

mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 15:14 (twenty years ago) link

I will say again though, I'm sure many killers would think killing was wrong, but still do it anyway.

mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 15:15 (twenty years ago) link

I'm sure you're right that many killers think/know that killing is wrong. That doesn't count as an argument against the belief that killing is wrong, though, so it kind of doesn't matter.

As for the hypothetical person who disagrees, thinking that killing is right, we need to ask them to defend their position. It's not enought just to speculate that someone might disagree with us in order for us to 'relativise' our beliefs (although this is exactly what relativists do all the time.) In the absence of an argument - good reasons - in favour of killing, I think we can safely say that killing is wrong.

run it off (run it off), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 20:58 (twenty years ago) link

I wouldn't try to argue against the belief that killing is wrong.

I couldn't honestly argue that killing is wrong or that killing is right.

I don't think the person who believes killing is right need defend their position. It's just a belief, no more or less valid than my belief that killing is wrong.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:39 (twenty years ago) link

In the absence of an argument - good reasons - in favour of killing, I think we can safely say that killing is wrong.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 28th, 2004.


This is where it's most clear that I'm NOT getting my point across:
YOU CANNOT ARGUE OR REASON TOWARDS A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING IS 'RIGHT' OR 'WRONG'.

There is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong', the division is arbitrary.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:45 (twenty years ago) link

I can't tell the difference between right and wrong and nor can anyone else, because There _is_ no difference between right and wrong.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:46 (twenty years ago) link

It's not enought just to speculate that someone might disagree with us in order for us to 'relativise' our beliefs (although this is exactly what relativists do all the time.)

I'm interested in this. I've never heard the term 'relativise' before. Do you think that's what I'm trying to do? Can you explain that a bit please.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:49 (twenty years ago) link

that's just what YOU think.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:51 (twenty years ago) link

IT IS!

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:01 (twenty years ago) link

(That's exactly what I'm saying!)

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:02 (twenty years ago) link

>Mmmm! If only all those Palestinians who
>were displaced/denied the right to a homeland by step
>2 could see things so lucidly, eh?

As far as I know, there was no systemic displacement of
Arab-speaking natives before the war.
Here's my understanding of the refugee situation:
When Jordan, Syria and Egypt attack Israel (for no reason beside
hatred) a large number of Muslims rose up and joined the war
against their Jewish neighbors. After the invaders were defeated,
the insurgents fled Israel with their families to avoid
retribution, and convincing every Muslim they could to leave
with them, by spreading tales of impending slaughter by Israeli
troops. Again, I do not know of any systemic persecutions or
displacements of Arab-speakers.

It's worth noting that most of the "refugees" alive now were
born in the refugee camps - strange situation, no? I don't
know of any other situation where the child of refugees are
also considered.

The "refugees" are in a stasis now because they are not wanted
by Israel OR the Arab nations. Israel's enemy
neighbors will have nothing to do with the "refugees" - they would prefer to leave that thorn in Israel's
side.


squrl pise, Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:15 (twenty years ago) link

Since that's a semi-unrelated rant, here's my thought on
the real topic at hand:

The anti-semites who admit to it are impotent and
ineffective. The smart ones are more dangerous;
they keep their true agenda hidden.

squirl plise, Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:17 (twenty years ago) link

Another question that is important to ask:
In light of the fact that the Zionist movement was in
full swing at the turn of the 20th century, and that but
the 1930s Jews and Muslims were living in peace in
Palestine -

Why did the peace end in the 40s? Were the Israelis
the ones committed to violence?


Also, I believe that the Arab governments were sympathetic
or perhaps even allied with Nazi Germany. Did they truly
have the moral high ground in 1967?

squirl_plise, Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:23 (twenty years ago) link

squirl_plise, do you think that deciding who is to blame or who is right here will help at all? Surely both sides (are there only 2?) already KNOW they're right.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:43 (twenty years ago) link

skwrl, your history is way off; the 'no systemic displacement' and 'peace in the 30's' bits are a total inverse of the truth, in fact.

google these: "stern gang" and "folke bernadotte"

g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:59 (twenty years ago) link

This issue drives me completely batshit, because the solution -- the ONLY solution -- is clear and has been for sometime: a free and autonomous Palestine. And everyone knows it. And nobody does it. There's more than enough blame to go all the way around the Middle East, and the U.S., and Europe, everybody playing it for their own ends and interests, but there's still only one possible outcome, at least in the short-term. (One could argue the longterm viability of a "Jewish state," or whether it's even important that there be a longterm Jewish state, but just getting to where the Jewish state and the Arab states aren't constantly fighting each other and are coexisting peacefully and prosperously should take us at minimum another few generations, and then things can go from there.)

I mean, what are the other possible solutions? The status quo is unacceptable to everyone; Israel doesn't want to absorb the entire Palestinian territory and population as Israeli citizens; nobody else really wants to annex the territory and take responsibility for a poverty-stricken population. Moreover, the Israelis and Palestinians need each other economically, so they have plenty of incentive to cut the shit out. But clearly it's going to take new leaders to put it into effect. And as long as everyone lets the suicide bombers dictate the pace of change (i.e. all it takes to derail everything for three more months is one asshole blowing up a bus), then it's going to come very slowly.

Meanwhile, 10 more people who were alive when this thread started are now dead.

spittle (spittle), Thursday, 29 January 2004 09:02 (twenty years ago) link

what does it mean to say two contradictory positions are right? Or that neither can seriously be thought to be right (or wrong)? This is not a valid argument in some circumstances but seems to be true (for relativists) in other circumstances. Let me explain.

Water, when heated, tends to boil. This is true. It is true not only because it happens a lot, but because it happens as a result of the properties of water and how those properties are affected by heat. Relativism doesn't apply. It is, let us say for shorthand, objective.

Ethical statements - as far as relativists are concerned - don't work in this way. This is because relativists are aware that different cultures and different individuals have different values. The relativist concludes that all ethical (etc) values are subjective, arbitrary, relative. (This isn't always the argument used by relativists but it is historically significant - relativism emerged during the colonial encounter with 'other' cultures).

One persistent problem has plagued relativism, though. How can the relativist's argument (that these values are arbitrary) be any better (on the relativist's own terms) than the non-relativist's argument? Relativism is internally coherent for this reason. How can you be a confirmed relativist? (And Mei, you are certainly both relativist and confirmed in your relativism).

What is a belief if it has no argument behind it or can't be argued for? I think, if pressed, you would certainly come up with good reasons to be a relativist. If that's true then even a relativist can understand that other people (non-relativists) will - and have a right to! - offer their good reasons too! And if that's true, then we are not simply in the position of exchanging unfounded beliefs that can't be resolved because there is no difference between right and wrong; we are in the position of discussing the rights and wrongs of each other's arguments.

run it off (run it off), Thursday, 29 January 2004 09:08 (twenty years ago) link

The anti-semites who admit to it are impotent and
ineffective. The smart ones are more dangerous;
they keep their true agenda hidden.

I understand how people can get into this kind of mindset, but I have now reached the point in my life where it just makes me go 'AAAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH'.

N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 29 January 2004 11:39 (twenty years ago) link

how do you know they keep their true agenda hidden if they keep it hidden and they're smart about it?

This sounds like a fantasy that 'they' keep things hidden. NB the fantasy also acts as justification for attacking 'them' despite the fact that 'they' seem to be innocent.

Go figure!

run it off (run it off), Thursday, 29 January 2004 11:43 (twenty years ago) link

This issue drives me completely batshit, because the solution -- the ONLY solution -- is clear and has been for sometime: a free and autonomous Palestine.

Spittle, because you KNOW the solution, you're (probably) part of the problem.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 12:25 (twenty years ago) link

wouldn't the solution involve *dialogue*?

run it off (run it off), Thursday, 29 January 2004 12:26 (twenty years ago) link

run it off, I certainly do seem to be a relativist!

One persistent problem has plagued relativism, though. How can the relativist's argument (that these values are arbitrary) be any better (on the relativist's own terms) than the non-relativist's argument? Relativism is internally coherent for this reason.

Yes, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't mind others disagreeing with me. Both myself and them can be right.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 12:32 (twenty years ago) link

wouldn't the solution involve *dialogue*?
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 29th, 2004.

Yes. I think one of the problems is that both sides are convinced that they're right _and_ the other side are wrong.

For every spittle there's someone as sure as him, but sure he's (or she's) wrong.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 12:38 (twenty years ago) link

Yes, but I don't see that as a problem. I don't mind others disagreeing with me. Both myself and them can be right.

-- mei (meirion.lewi...), January 29th, 2004.

Sorry, to clarify this, I'm not talking about any particular issue, rather, I don't have a problem thinking that this whole 'relativist' position (which I apparantly hold) is wrong.

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 12:44 (twenty years ago) link

You've made some very good points here.

What is a belief if it has no argument behind it or can't be argued for?

That's what a lot of people would call a belief. Some mentalists would argue that the more implausible and less evidenced a belief the better it is. Most of these mentalists would be religious.


I think, if pressed, you would certainly come up with good reasons to be a relativist. If that's true then even a relativist can understand that other people (non-relativists) will - and have a right to! - offer their good reasons too!

I'm not arguing against reasoning and I think some positions (in all matters) have more to commend them than others. But they're just reasons, suggestions, hints, supporting evidence...

It's not possible to _prove_ which side of an ethical argument is correct. In fact, this is partly why I say two opposing view points can be right at the same time - because neither can be proved right or proved wrong.


And if that's true, then we are not simply in the position of exchanging unfounded beliefs that can't be resolved because there is no difference between right and wrong; we are in the position of discussing the rights and wrongs of each other's arguments.
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 29th, 2004.

This depends on the belief in question.
There are unfounded beliefs that just happen to be correct.


Discussing the rights and wrongs might change peoples minds, but often it can' prove the validity of beliefs.

I do kind of think that there is no fundamental difference between right and wrong. Can you formulate a definition of what 'right' is?

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 13:02 (twenty years ago) link

I meant "...CAN'T prove the validity of their beliefs."

mei (mei), Thursday, 29 January 2004 14:36 (twenty years ago) link

four weeks pass...
Again, this annoyed me today, in relation to the Mel Gibson film:

"This is a tremendous, tremendous setback. I hope this will not be accepted by Christians in this country. It is this lie, the lie that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus, which planted the seeds of the Holocaust, Rabbi Avi Weiss, president of Amcha, said. (http://www.nbc17.com/entertainment/2874405/detail.html)

I mean yeah, you can say that 'Jews killed Jesus' is completely missing the point of the gospel, fine, but to say that it's a 'lie' that Jews were responsible for his death is just wrong, unless you're challenging the historicity of the gospels' accounts of the crucifixion, which I don't think he's doing. Why use that word 'lie', when it just plays into your opponents' hands?

On the radio, I heard someone from the Anti-Defamation League making the much more reasonable point, that all the bad Jews in the film looked stereotypically Jewish, whilst the good ones (ie. Jesus and his disciples) didn't. Assuming that's true, then that's completely fair criticism.

N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 26 February 2004 21:50 (twenty years ago) link

Well, the Romans killed Jesus, is the thing. The limited Jewish leadership in the area, which operated only so long as Rome allowed it to, was complicit in the execution at the most, but by the same token it's unlikely they could have done anything to stop it.

It's not completely, thoroughly false that Jews were involved in the execution of Jesus; it's completely misleading to say "Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus" if you're singling them out to do so.

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 26 February 2004 22:29 (twenty years ago) link

it's a bit like saying that poles were responsible for auschwitz, innit?

strongo hulkington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 26 February 2004 22:33 (twenty years ago) link

It's also just sort of funny, because it's not like there were loads of other people around to be complicit in it. The whole libel seems contingent on this bizarre idea that most everyone loved Jesus and it was just some Jews from around the way who came by and knocked him off.

(In other words for "Romans" we should substitute "state" and for "Jews" we should substitute, like, "public.")

nabiscothingy, Thursday, 26 February 2004 22:34 (twenty years ago) link


This thread has been locked by an administrator

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