Antisemitism On Campus

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I wonder how Anti-Semitism accounts for why Gypsies were also killed during the holocaust?

Or maybe the driving force behind the holocaust wasn't Anti-Semitism at all but something else? Maybe the pursuit of a pure German state was generated by an adherence to the twisted ideology of Ethnic Nationalism - the same twisted ideology now being pursued by the Zionists in Israel.

I think thats a pretty week comparison. The driving ideology was anti-semitism and anti-communism and the major platforms of the Nazi party during that time period, selling the German people on the idea that Germany was stabbed in the back by a Jewish conspiracy after WWI and the idea that communist would destroy Germany if elected. I think Hitler might have wrote a book on it while in prison?

So then how does anti-semitism and anti-communism explain the extermination of Gypsies and the disabled?

\
and the gay and other minorities....

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

So then how does anti-semitism and anti-communism explain the extermination of Gypsies and the disabled?

Nazi ideology was complex and anti-Semitism was a major driving force but not the only force? Yes, other groups were targeted, but it makes no sense to argue that anti-Semitism wasn't an important aspect of the ideology when obviously it was, especially when one considers the overall historical context of European prejudice towards Jews.

yosi

Nazism was a complex ideological mix that included ideas of racial purity that while predominantly fixated on Jews, also targeted other "inferior" groups, such as gays, gypsies, socialists and communist, the disabled, and to a great extent Poles and Slavs as well. But the fact remained that Anti-semitism was central to Nazism in a way beyond these other groups. Jews were not simply undesirable, as gypsies were, they were actively portrayed as an all powerful, demonic enemy of the German people.

The point is the Nazis had enough hate in their hearts for everyone, but Anti-Semitism was there biggest thing.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

'..the fact remained that Anti-semitism was central to Nazism in a way beyond these other groups. Jews were not simply undesirable, as gypsies were, they were actively portrayed as an all powerful, demonic enemy of the German people.

I disagree. Seems to me that Ethnic Nationalism and Ethnic Racial Supremacy were the driving force for Nazism, just as they are now the driving force for Zionism. Both abhorrent ideologies that deserve no respect or tolerance.

Anti-Semitism is now used mainly as a smokescreen to deflect attention from, and excuse, Israel's crimes.

I recommend you read Norman Finkelstein's book 'Beyond Chutzpah: On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History' for further clarification on this issue.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/kill-a ... -semitism/

Norman Finkelstein:
A central thesis of my book Beyond Chutzpah is that whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle its apologists sound the alarm that a “new anti-Semitism” is upon us. So, predictably, just after Israel faced another image problem due to its murderous destruction of Lebanon, a British all-party parliamentary group led by notorious Israel-firster Denis MacShane MP (Labor) released yet another report alleging a resurgence of anti-Semitism (Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism, September 2006). To judge by the witnesses (David Cesarani, Lord Janner, Oona King, Emanuele Ottolenghi, Melanie Phillips) and sources (MEMRI, Holocaust Education Trust) cited in the body of the report, much time and money could have been saved had it just been contracted out to the Israel Foreign Ministry.[1]

The single novelty of the report, which mostly rehashes fatuous allegations already disposed of in Beyond Chutzpah, is the new thresholds in idiocy it breaks. Consider the methodology deployed for demonstrating a new anti-Semitism. The report defines an anti-Semitic incident as any occasion “perceived” to be anti-Semitic by the “Jewish community.”[2] This is the school of thought according to which it’s raining even in the absence of any precipitation because I feel it’s raining. It is the dream philosophy of paranoids - especially rational paranoids, for whom alleged victimhood is politically serviceable. The report includes under the rubric of anti-Semitic incidents not just violent acts and incendiary speech but “conversations, discussions, or pronouncements made in public or private, which cross the line of acceptability,” as well as “the mood and tone when Jews are discussed.” The wonder is that it didn’t also tabulate repressed anti-Semitic libidinal fantasies.[3] In the category of inherently anti-Semitic pronouncements the report includes “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” (only comparisons of contemporary Arab policy to that of the Nazis are permissible) and “theories about Jewish or Zionist influence on American foreign policy” (even if Jewish and Zionist organizations boast about this influence).[4]

Much of the evidence of pervasive British anti-Semitism stretches and strains credulity. The lone item listed under the ominous subheading “The Blood Libel” is a Syrian television series “that would be possible for viewers in the UK to see…if they had suitable satellite receiving equipment.”[5] The report also notes the unreferenced “case of a Jewish university lecturer who was subjected to an anti-Semitic tirade from a student in the middle of a lecture and subsequently asked to explain to the university authorities why he had upset the student.”[6] Is it anti-Semitic to wonder whether this is a crock? And then it cites the warning of the London Assembly Conservative Group that “there is a risk that in some political quarters ‘views on international events can, almost subconsciously, lead to subtly different attitudes to, and levels of engagement with, different minority groups.’”[7] The new anti-Semitism business must be going seriously awry when British conservatives start sounding like Lacan. Finally, it is anti-Semitic for student unions to advocate a boycott of Israeli goods because this “would restrict the availability of kosher food on campus.”[8] Maybe Israel can organize a “Berlin airlift” of gefilte fish.

Although claiming that, in the struggle against anti-Semitism, “none of those who gave evidence wished to see the right of free speech eroded,” and “only in extreme circumstances would we advocate legal intervention,”[9] the report recommends that university authorities “take an active interest in combating acts, speeches, literature and events that cause anxiety or alarm among their Jewish students,” and it registers disquiet that “classic and modern anti-Semitic works are freely available for ordering on the Amazon.com website,” and that “the United States in particular has been slow to take action” in closing down “anti-Semitic internet sites.”[10] It is at moments like this that even the least patriotic of souls can take pride in being an American.

OffHeGoes29

Byrnzie wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

I wonder how Anti-Semitism accounts for why Gypsies were also killed during the holocaust?

Or maybe the driving force behind the holocaust wasn't Anti-Semitism at all but something else? Maybe the pursuit of a pure German state was generated by an adherence to the twisted ideology of Ethnic Nationalism - the same twisted ideology now being pursued by the Zionists in Israel.

I think thats a pretty week comparison. The driving ideology was anti-semitism and anti-communism and the major platforms of the Nazi party during that time period, selling the German people on the idea that Germany was stabbed in the back by a Jewish conspiracy after WWI and the idea that communist would destroy Germany if elected. I think Hitler might have wrote a book on it while in prison?

So then how does anti-semitism and anti-communism explain the extermination of Gypsies and the disabled?

It was about racial purity as well, but the focus was about anti-Semitism and anti-communism. He wasn't elected over his views on gypsies, homosexual, the disabled, and the Poles. If you want to make a connection to anything, make a connection to the British Empire's Colonial past. You can look at whats going on in the Middle East and make the connection to South Africa or Ireland. Its about land, resources, and security.....and make no mistake, people are all the same. The only reason people are so anti-Zionist here, is because they are the one with the money and military power. If the tables were turned, Palestine would be doing the same thing. You know "two wrongs don't make a right".

Byrnzie

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

It was about racial purity as well, but the focus was about anti-Semitism and anti-communism. He wasn't elected over his views on gypsies, homosexual, the disabled, and the Poles. If you want to make a connection to anything, make a connection to the British Empire's Colonial past. You can look at whats going on in the Middle East and make the connection to South Africa or Ireland. Its about land, resources, and security.....and make no mistake, people are all the same. The only reason people are so anti-Zionist here, is because they are the one with the money and military power. If the tables were turned, Palestine would be doing the same thing. You know "two wrongs don't make a right".

Sure, the Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, which as we all know was pure bollocks. It was an attempt to justify implementation of ideology of Aryan ethnic supremacy. Not too dissimilar to what we see now with the Zionists using an illusory global Anti-Semitism to try and justify their militaristic expansionism.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

Sure, the Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, which as we all know was pure bollocks. It was an attempt to justify implementation of ideology of Aryan ethnic supremacy. Not too dissimilar to what we see now with the Zionists using an illusory global Anti-Semitism to try and justify their militaristic expansionism.

So where did Aryan ethnic superiority doctrines come from, then? These views likely had their origins in earlier concerns around Jewish hegemony in certain sectors of European society. Prejudical attitudes toward Jews which predate the Dark Ages ... Say what you wish about spurious Zionist use of anti-Semitism claims in the modern era, there's still a valid historical context involved.

OffHeGoes29

Byrnzie wrote:

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

It was about racial purity as well, but the focus was about anti-Semitism and anti-communism. He wasn't elected over his views on gypsies, homosexual, the disabled, and the Poles. If you want to make a connection to anything, make a connection to the British Empire's Colonial past. You can look at whats going on in the Middle East and make the connection to South Africa or Ireland. Its about land, resources, and security.....and make no mistake, people are all the same. The only reason people are so anti-Zionist here, is because they are the one with the money and military power. If the tables were turned, Palestine would be doing the same thing. You know "two wrongs don't make a right".

Sure, the Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, which as we all know was pure bollocks. It was an attempt to justify implementation of ideology of Aryan ethnic supremacy. Not too dissimilar to what we see now with the Zionists using an illusory global Anti-Semitism to try and justify their militaristic expansionism.

I'm really not too sure what your trying to get at with the Nazi connection, seems like we are running in circles here.

You can thank Great Britain for giving "The Evil Zionist" the land to start their "expansionism".

Pepe Silvia

rebornFixer wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Sure, the Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, which as we all know was pure bollocks. It was an attempt to justify implementation of ideology of Aryan ethnic supremacy. Not too dissimilar to what we see now with the Zionists using an illusory global Anti-Semitism to try and justify their militaristic expansionism.

So where did Aryan ethnic superiority doctrines come from, then? These views likely had their origins in earlier concerns around Jewish hegemony in certain sectors of European society. Prejudical attitudes toward Jews which predate the Dark Ages ... Say what you wish about spurious Zionist use of anti-Semitism claims in the modern era, there's still a valid historical context involved.

i saw something about this on nat geo or the history channel a year or so ago, you know about that icke guy, right? the one that says there are reptilians living among us, controlling us? it's similar, some people believe hebrews are a different, lower species than humans and it's only through cross breeding that they have corrupted the gene pool and combined species to look so much like us, before that they looked kind of human but more monkey. they believed the devil was jealous of god's creation (humans) so he tried, too, but could only make unfortunate creatures like the monkey and jews, nothing like the perfection of god's creation. so hitler thought he was ridding the world of the impure genes of hebrews, gays, gypsies, blacks, people with disabilities.... and could save his race, god's chosen race. look at propaganda from that time, the aryan is all handsome and heroic looking and the jews look more sinister with hooked noses, bent backs, they have beady eyes....on top of the mentality of 'they killed jesus!!'

yosi

Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm)
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.

WaveCameCrashin

yosi wrote:

Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm)
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.

Good for you Yosi.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Zi·on·ism (zī'ə-nĭz'əm)
n. A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.

1. "Clearly, the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country...[Chaim] Weizmann had impressed on Churchill that representative government would have spelled the end of the [Jewish] National Home in Palestine..."
-David Hirst

2. "the [Zionist] program was unjust in principle because it denied majority political rights...Zionism, in principle, could not allow the natives to exercise their political rights because it would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise." (Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins.")

3. ""If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine—nearly nine-tenths of the whole—are emphatically against the entire Zionist program...To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted..."
(The Israel-Arab Reader" ed. Laquer and Rubin.)

4. "Arab rejection [of the UN Partition Plan in 1947] was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body—a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter."
(Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest.")


Michael Neumann:
Zionism was a movement that advocated not so much the defense of an ethnic group, as the formation of such a group in Palestine, where those who were thought to fit a certain semi-racial category were to find refuge. It was a lovely dream where all Jews would live happily together and, with typical Wilsonian obliviousness, no one seemed to notice that those who did not pass ethnic muster had no place in this fantasy. If they were to be tolerated, welcomed, even loved, it was to be at the pleasure of the Jews. Of that there could be no mistake. This is exactly the sort of vulnerable subordination that Jews, quite understandably, were trying to escape. "Trust us, we'll be nice" is not a promise endorsed by the historical record.

Zionists respond with fury when their movement is identified with racism. Many ethnic supremacists do. They protest that they do not advocate their own superiority, but simply want a land or culture of their own. But that is of neccesity a land where one race is guaranteed supremacy: whether or not this is on grounds of intrinsic superiority hardly matters. And that such movements and attitudes gain respectability is not the fault of the Zionists, much less of the Jews, but of an idiotically false tolerance of ethnic nationalism.'

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Zionism has in principle nothing to do with any sort of racist belief. Zionism does not as an ideology demand hatred of Arabs, and it does not as an ideology cast the Jewish people as inherently superior to any other people. Zionism is simply the desire of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state in our homeland. There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism. Byrnzie, you are quite frankly wrong. I am a committed Zionist. So are my parents. We have friends from many races, including Palestinians. We do not think that Jews are inherently better in any way than any other group of people. Your comparison of Zionism to Nazism is not only wrong, it is insulting and abhorrent, and to be honest, I lose a little more respect for you every time you make it.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11020.shtml

Zionism's destabilizing force: "Israeli Exceptionalism" reviewed
Ahmed Moor, The Electronic Intifada, 20 January 2010

In his new book Israeli Exceptionalism: The Destabilizing Logic of Zionism, M. Shahid Alam successfully argues that the moral force behind the Zionist movement is a sense of Jewish, and consequently Israeli, exceptionalism. This claim of exceptionalism underpins what he calls the "destabilizing logic of Zionism." According to Alam, Zionism "could advance only by creating and promoting conflicts between the West and the Islamicate" (p. 3). He defines the "Islamicate" as consisting of the broader Muslim world, with the Middle East at its heart.

Alam, a professor of economics at Boston's Northeastern University, begins his book by detailing the core problem that confronted the nascent Zionist movement: the creation of a Jewish nation from disparate and scattered Jewish communities. Zionists set out to solve this problem by creating a myth of exceptionalism that could be embraced by Jews around the globe. These myths were steeped in a combination of religious mythology and ethnic nationalist exclusivism that presented the Jews as the "chosen people" (p. 9) and Palestine as their sole and God-given birthright.

These claims were expanded upon during the British mandate of Palestine and after the founding of the State of Israel. Zionists asserted that the Jewish "liberation" movement was different from other liberation movements because "the long history of Jewish suffering, the Jewish ability to outlive their enemies, their signal contributions to human civilization, and their spectacular victories against Arab armies" demonstrated the purity of their cause and their exceptionalism (p. 5). Finally, they argued that Israel was a singular case because it was surrounded and threatened by hostile and murderous Arab states and masses. Through these arguments, Alam asserts, Zionists cultivated an environment that overlooks and in some cases endorses their movement's human rights abuses and racist policies.

In the second segment of the book, Alam examines the history of the region, reviewing the violent history of the early Zionist colonists and describing it as a core, rather than incidental, program of Zionism. Violent, racist attitudes towards the Arabs generally and the Palestinians specifically had to be nurtured by those who would make Palestine the Jewish homeland. They acted as intermediaries between the "West" and the "Islamicate" insofar as they were of the former and claimed to understand the latter. To galvanize Western support for Israel, it was vital for Zionists to create a myth of Muslim-Christian antipathy. Alam paraphrases the perceptions caused by the myth: "f the Islamists vent their anger at the United States, it is not because of its policies, but because it is Christian" (p. 42). Naturally then, a Jewish state in Palestine could act both as a buffer against Muslim masses, and a projection of Western power and interests. This is the argument presented by some Zionists.

It wasn't enough to argue that the Arabs were uncivil to gain their land. Zionists also had to align themselves with anti-Semitic elements in Europe to advance their goals. Alam writes, "In the 1930s, the Nazis banned all Jewish organizations except those with Zionist aims; they even allowed the Zionists to fly their blue-and-white flag with the Star of David at its center. In violation of the Jewish boycott of the Nazi economy, the Zionists promised cash and trade concessions to Nazi Germany if they directed Jewish emigrants to Palestine" (p. 123). This was necessary to promote Jewish emigration to Palestine. The reality was, and continues to be today, that when Jewish people from Eastern Europe are given the choice, many will choose to emigrate to Western Europe and the US before Israel.

Through these means, Zionists gained the support of a variety of surrogate mother countries across the decades. Anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and anti-Islamism, and Jewish influence all came together to persuade the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain and of course, the United States to support Zionism.

Israeli Exceptionalism also sheds light on British, and later, American evangelical support for Zionism. Evangelical Zionists, broadly termed Christian Zionists, came into being as a result of the Great Reformation. Catholics believe that God nullified his covenant with the Jews when they rejected Jesus Christ. But when Protestants overthrew the authority of the Catholic Church, they sought to differentiate themselves by reinstating God's covenant with the Jews and recognizing "the Jews as God's chosen people with eternal rights to Palestine" (p. 130). Although created by Jewish Americans, the American Palestine Committee (APC) was intended to marshal Christian support for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. By 1941, the APC's membership included "70 US senators, 120 congressmen, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Interior, 21 state governors" and other prominent individuals (p. 134). Reinhold Niebuhr and other leading Christian Zionists later created the Christian Council on Palestine to influence fellow clergymen.

Alam argues convincingly that Zionism itself is destabilizing, and the force that sustains it -- tension between the West and Islamic societies -- is a deliberate, not incidental, feature of Zionism. Israeli Exceptionalism manages to provide a fresh view to a vast library of literature on Zionism by dispelling the myth of Jewish disempowerment and highlighting the role of anti-Semitism and anti-Islamic sentiment inherent in Israel's establishment. His discussion of Reformation theology is also crucial to understanding the long-standing support for a "Jewish Palestine" in American civil life, even before the founding of Israel. Alam's straightforward and accessible discussion of the world's last "exclusive settler colony" makes Israeli Exceptionalism an important addition to the scholarship on Israel-Palestine.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

There are certainly racist Zionists, but their racism is not a manifestation of their Zionism.

Zionism is an ideology that claims Jewish exceptionalism and an inherent God-given right to the whole of the land of Palestine - and if that means at the expense of it's Arab inhabitants, then so much the worse for the Arabs.

yosi

Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.

Pepe Silvia

yosi wrote:

Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.

maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?

rebornFixer

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.

maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?

So world opinion is now somehow the same thing as truth? At one point, everyone believed the world was flat, too. Also, not agreeing with Israel's actions in Palestine is NOT the same thing as anti-Semitism, and it is not clear to me what your statistic reflects.

Pepe Silvia

rebornFixer wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

yosi wrote:

Your response reflects what enemies of Israel would like to believe Zionism is. It does not actually address the reality of Zionism. I am a Zionist. I do not believe that Jews are exceptional, and I don't even really believe in God, so I certainly don't believe that Jews have a God-given right to the land of Israel. In fact my Zionism grows in large part out of the realization that Jews are very unexceptional, except perhaps for the fact that we are exceptionally hated, and that there is no God that will miraculously intervene in history to save and protect us. Jews are just like every other people. We have to take care of ourselves in an uncaring world. I am a Zionist because I believe that Jews have the same right as all other peoples to self-determination in our homeland.

maybe you need to ask yourself why in 2007 only 17% of the world saw Israel in a positive way? or do you sweep it all to being anti-semitism?

So world opinion is now somehow the same thing as truth? At one point, everyone believed the world was flat, too. Also, not agreeing with Israel's actions in Palestine is NOT the same thing as anti-Semitism, and it is not clear to me what your statistic reflects.

so you are saying the world is just naive and misguided in those polls? the statistic was pretty clear: Respondents were asked to rate 12 countries -- Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the USA, Venezuela -- and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.

and only 17% thinks Israel has a positive influence in the world, the lowest polled, ahead of the devil state Iran. even more 4 years earlier the EU said Israel was the #1 threat to world peace.

it reflects that the majority of the world does not buy the victim and self defense card, except for a very few countries, and perhaps it's not anti-semitism to question Israel's actions but common sense?

rebornFixer

Pepe Silvia wrote:

so you are saying the world is just naive and misguided in those polls? the statistic was pretty clear: Respondents were asked to rate 12 countries -- Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the USA, Venezuela -- and the European Union, as having a positive or negative influence.

and only 17% thinks Israel has a positive influence in the world, the lowest polled, ahead of the devil state Iran. even more 4 years earlier the EU said Israel was the #1 threat to world peace.

it reflects that the majority of the world does not buy the victim and self defense card, except for a very few countries, and perhaps it's not anti-semitism to question Israel's actions but common sense?

Not necessarily, although I might question whether people in Iran or North Korea should really be casting stones at other nations for human rights abuses ... I can agree with the basic notion that questioning Israel's actions is more than justified, as I've said many times before. I don't feel that your poll data can actually be used to argue against the existence of anti-Semitism, though, which seemed to be your intent. Maybe I misunderstood.

michelleelise

That poll is an interesting but shallow overview of the views of other countries. There is no depth to it in that it doesn't delve at all into why the citizens of one country would feel one way or another about the other countries on the list. So it doesn't prove or disprove anti-semitism. For that, they'd need to focus on the reasoning behind people's answers, which that poll doesn't do. You can't possibly know just by looking at that poll whether a particular individual rated Israel negatively because they are against the violence on both sides or whether it was because they hold anti-semitic views. The pollsters don't even attempt to do that.

BTW, citing Germany as the country with the most anti-Israel sentiment (outside of the Middle East countries) doesn't exactly bolster your claim that the poll proves a lack of anti-semitism, either.