I'll take a pass on answering, not because I lack answers but because it wouldn't matter what I say. You've consistently ignored everything I've said. Not simply disagreed, but ignored and in some cases pretended that I've said the opposite. That's why you can ask me with a straight face whether I think the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, despite the fact that I have argued for years on this forum in favor of a two-state solution.
Here's the deal, when you start showing the ability to actually engage with what I write rather than pretending that I hold views that I've already explicitly rejected I'll start treating this as a dialogue.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Regarding Atzmon, by the way, what exactly are you getting at? Are you trying to argue that he's not an antisemite or simply that the one article I linked to wasn't antisemitic in content? Because from where I'm sitting this is as if I said that a website that regularly publishes David Duke is racist, and you're quibbling with whether the one article out of dozens I linked to is itself racist. Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point. It's very simple. Either you're willing to defend Atzmon himself, in which case I would say that you're aligning yourself with a virulent antisemite, or you try to explain to me why Counterpunch should get a free pass for having a well known antisemite as a regular contributor.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'll take a pass on answering, not because I lack answers but because it wouldn't matter what I say. You've consistently ignored everything I've said.
Bullshit. I've responded to every single one of your slippery accusations in this thread. Every single one of them. And anyone reading this thread can see that.
You really have no shame lying through your teeth, do you?
Now why don't you answer my questions, instead of ducking and evading them with lame excuses?
Regarding Atzmon, by the way, what exactly are you getting at? Are you trying to argue that he's not an antisemite or simply that the one article I linked to wasn't antisemitic in content? Because from where I'm sitting this is as if I said that a website that regularly publishes David Duke is racist, and you're quibbling with whether the one article out of dozens I linked to is itself racist. Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point. It's very simple. Either you're willing to defend Atzmon himself, in which case I would say that you're aligning yourself with a virulent antisemite, or you try to explain to me why Counterpunch should get a free pass for having a well known antisemite as a regular contributor.
My question was perfectly clear. Any five year old with basic reading comprehension would be capable of understanding it. So why are you pretending that you don't understand it? Honesty isn't one of your strong points is it Yosi?
So why don't you answer my questions instead of ducking and evading them with lame excuses?
Oh, and the article I posted from Counterpunch wasn't by Atzmon. It was an article written by Michael Neumann. So instead of trying to deflect attention from that article, why don't you address it instead?
Regarding Atzmon, by the way, what exactly are you getting at? Are you trying to argue that he's not an antisemite or simply that the one article I linked to wasn't antisemitic in content? Because from where I'm sitting this is as if I said that a website that regularly publishes David Duke is racist, and you're quibbling with whether the one article out of dozens I linked to is itself racist. Whether it is or it isn't is beside the point. It's very simple. Either you're willing to defend Atzmon himself, in which case I would say that you're aligning yourself with a virulent antisemite, or you try to explain to me why Counterpunch should get a free pass for having a well known antisemite as a regular contributor.
My question was perfectly clear. Any five year old with basic reading comprehension would be capable of understanding it. So why are you pretending that you don't understand it? Honesty isn't one of your strong points is it Yosi?
So why don't you answer my questions instead of ducking and evading them with lame excuses?
And my response was perfectly clear. It doesn't matter whether that particular article is antisemitic. As I already said, the point is that Counterpunch and Atzmon are closely related. A point that you seem to be studiously avoiding by trying to focus solely on that one article. I assume the reason you're doing so is because by now you've realized that Atzmon really is a raging bigot but for some reason you just are psychologically incapable of admitting that you're wrong about anything.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
And my response was perfectly clear. It doesn't matter whether that particular article is antisemitic. As I already said, the point is that Counterpunch and Atzmon are closely related. A point that you seem to be studiously avoiding by trying to focus solely on that one article. I assume the reason you're doing so is because by now you've realized that Atzmon really is a raging bigot but for some reason you just are psychologically incapable of admitting that you're wrong about anything.
Again, evading and ducking my questions.
I asked you to provide concrete written evidence that Atzmon is an anti-Semite. What did he say exactly that was anti-Semitic?
Then you can answer the rest of my questions, instead of making excuse after excuse.
I asked you six questions. I've replied to every single one of your lame accusations, and attempts to paint me as an anti-Semite.
Yet you don't have the common decency to answer a single one of the questions Ive posed to you in return. So now I'm gonna refuse to respond to any more of your bullshit until you do.
And my response was perfectly clear. It doesn't matter whether that particular article is antisemitic. As I already said, the point is that Counterpunch and Atzmon are closely related. A point that you seem to be studiously avoiding by trying to focus solely on that one article. I assume the reason you're doing so is because by now you've realized that Atzmon really is a raging bigot but for some reason you just are psychologically incapable of admitting that you're wrong about anything.
Again, evading and ducking my questions.
I asked you to provide concrete written evidence that Atzmon is an anti-Semite. What did he say exactly that was anti-Semitic?
Then you can answer the rest of my questions, instead of making excuse after excuse.
And I've already quoted extensively from the wiki article on him which provides quotations. Also, you know, you could do your own research. The man is a straight up antisemite and it's sickening that you're trying to defend him.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Looks like there are efforts across the U.S and Canada to stifle debate on the Israel/Palestine conflict by wielding the anti-Semitism card. This could have serious consequences for free speech, at least as it applies to criticism of Israel.
New legislation in the US threatens to conflate campus criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. (Sami Kishawi)
A number of new initiatives to curtail freedom of speech by conflating opposition to Israeli crimes with anti-Semitism are underway in the United States and Canada.
The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) issued a report in early July recommending the adoption of strict new standards defining anti-Semitism and the types of speech and campus activities that would violate them. Its report urged the Canadian government to adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism (“Report on the Inquiry Panel,” 7 July 2011 [PDF]). That definition suggests that any questioning of whether Israel has the right to exist as a state that privileges Jews over people of other religions or ethnic backgrounds amounts to anti-Semitism.
Though the Canadian group is not linked to the Ottawa government, it has 22 parliamentarians as members. Activities it deems as anti-Semitic and, therefore, calls to be banned, include events such as the Israeli Apartheid Week that was founded in Toronto and now takes place on college campuses internationally every March.
The Canadian report is just the latest attempt at stifling public discourse about Israel. Free speech and the unimpeded exchange of ideas are also under attack on America’s college campuses. Pro-Israel supporters have targeted federal funding for academic institutions, including support for research and academic conferences, under the pretext that criticism of Israel is “hate speech.”
...A “dear colleague” letter issued by the Office of Civil Rights in October 2010 said that discrimination against a student who is a member of a religious group violates Title VI when the discrimination is based on the group’s “actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics … or when it is based upon the student’s actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity,” David Thomas, a US Department of Education spokesman, explained by email.
Bowing to the Zionist lobby
Major pro-Israel organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America and the Anti-Defamation League have lobbied for this re-interpretation for years. Title VI now can be applied to Jewish students who claim universities create hostile campus environments if they allow pro-Palestinian events or even class lectures critical of Israeli policies.
...Dr. Hatem Bazian, a Palestinian-American professor of Near Eastern and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, who co-founded the Students for Justice in Palestine there in 1993, takes issue with the amended understanding of Title VI. While he agrees that Jewish students, as well as Muslim students, should be protected from discrimination based on their religious identity under Title VI, he believes the reinterpretation is actually being used to silence debate about Israel.
“Attempts to silence opposition to the illegal Israeli occupation and policies is un-American and amounts to political and academic censorship,” Bazian said via email. (Bazian is also the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, the organization with which this writer is employed).
The Title VI reinterpretation and the subsequent case against Santa Cruz is part of a growing trend of stifling of protected political speech on college campuses. Several lecturers and professors have been censured and even denied tenure because they openly criticized Israeli policies or advocated for Palestinian rights.
Perhaps the most widely publicized cases are those of former DePaul University professor Norman Finkelstein and North Carolina State University professor Terri Ginsberg, both of whom were not given tenure because of their open criticism of Israeli policies in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Ginsberg initiated legal action against North Carolina State and her case is currently on appeal.
Freedom of information denied
The new interpretation has rejuvenated a 29-page complaint brought against the University of California Santa Cruz in June 2009 by lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the contents of which have been kept secret by the Department of Education and university officials.
...No one contacted from the university or the Department of Education would discuss how an institution can be held liable for something that was not considered to be a violation at the time it occurred.
...If federal investigators find a university to be in violation of Title VI and the institution does not remedy the situation satisfactorily it could lose federal funding. This is a worst-case scenario to be sure, but it is one that seemingly threatens the open exchange of ideas on college campuses.
...“The purpose of a university is to have students wrestle with ideas with which they may disagree, or even better, may make them uncomfortable. To censor ideas is to diminish education, and to treat students as fragile recipients of ‘knowledge,’ rather than young critical thinkers,” they added.
American Muslims for Palestine’s Hatem Bazian said the implications of the re-interpretation go far beyond free speech in the classroom and at extra-curricular events. Funding for scholarly research and academic conferences that bring up “legitimate criticism of Israel” may be at stake, he said.
“The new interpretation will directly, first and foremost, impact those who administer Title VI funding, and they for sure will be more hesitant and will engage in self-censorship in funding research or activities that are critical of Israel,” Bazian said.
Indeed, the Anti-Defamation League was one of 12 national organizations that urged the Department of Education to amend its Title VI interpretation. It may have just been a co-signer in that battle but the ADL has taken the lead in many high-profile cases to stifle free speech and public debate in its hundred-year history.
In March, the ADL, along with the American Jewish Committee and the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, protested an academic conference at the UC Hastings College of the Law in March entitled “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights?” Their protest was so effective the university board voted to remove its name and endorsement for the event and it prevented university Chancellor Frank Wu from making opening remarks.
Here is the text of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism referenced above. I've bolded a few parts that seem to speak to some of the comments sometimes seen on this forum. Needless to say, I don't think the E.U. Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia are out to use the charge of antisemitism to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel (see the last line of the definition).
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Badbrains is this the topic youi want me to comment on ? I'll save us time, no thank you but I can say this, I respect Yosi's knowledge and opinion on this...yes I read a little bit of the thread.
Badbrains is this the topic youi want me to comment on ? I'll save us time, no thank you but I can say this, I respect Yosi's knowledge and opinion on this...yes I read a little bit of the thread.
Godfather.
And byrnzie's knowledge on this?? No suprise in your thinking. But carry on.
Badbrains is this the topic youi want me to comment on ? I'll save us time, no thank you but I can say this, I respect Yosi's knowledge and opinion on this...yes I read a little bit of the thread.
Godfather.
And byrnzie's knowledge on this?? No suprise in your thinking. But carry on.
should I have more respect for your opinions on this because you are a western muslim ?...what is a western muslim ?
Badbrains is this the topic youi want me to comment on ? I'll save us time, no thank you but I can say this, I respect Yosi's knowledge and opinion on this...yes I read a little bit of the thread.
Godfather.
And byrnzie's knowledge on this?? No suprise in your thinking. But carry on.
should I have more respect for your opinions on this because you are a western muslim ?...what is a western muslim ?
Godfather.
No GF, continue to live the life you're living. You're doing a great job. You can't even tell when I'm busting chops. And I dnt need your respect for me to have a fulfilled life.
I know one things for sure. If I had people continuously telling me I'm a bigot or racist, I'd most def take a good look at myself and views. But then again, we know u dnt give a shit about anything other then "your" little world u live in. Such a shame cuz u def have passion in what it is you believe, it's too bad u can't use that passion for the good. Open your mind, and your eyes bro. Not for me but for yourself.
I'm not. Truly. The comment was directed at what I perceive to be someone else's refusal to be even minimally self-critical in this regard.
Oh ok cool, cuz I thought no matter what different views u and I have on this matter, we've always been respectful and cool. We dnt agree but we've been cool. I wish u and byrnzie can be cool. You guys have so much passion in this cause. I know your back and forths are entertaining for others, but the info you guys put out for us critical thinkers to decide for ourselves is tops, when it stays on topic. Only issue I really have is you think byrnzie mite be an anti-Semite, I could be wrong about your views on him, but we all know he's NO anti-Semite. He's just really passionate as you are about this fucked up situation. I'm sure he'd have a beer with u at a pearl jam show with no hesitation. I could be wrong but doubt it. Again, thanks for clarifying it for me.
"Find a lighthouse in the dark stormy weather, we ALL can use a sedative right now." "Holy rollers sitting with their backs to the middle, all alone and sinking is the bow."
Just to be precise, I think he unintentionally posts comments that he doesn't realize come very close to being and sometimes are antisemitic. But my real problem is that he refuses to be at all self-critical when I point this out to him, instead insisting that because his comments are made in the context of criticizing Israel, and because they are not bigoted in intent, they cannot, by definition, be antisemitic. Worse, as far as I can tell, he argues that any criticism of Israel by anyone is by definition legitimate and cannot be a disguise for antisemitism. And worse still, he consistently insists that in the context of criticism of Israel any accusation of antisemitism is inherently made in bad faith in an effort to stifle speech, thereby contributing to the creation of a safe haven for antisemitism -- so long as someone couches their antisemitism in terms of "Israel" or "Zionism" they are immune from rebuke for their racism.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Here is the text of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism referenced above. I've bolded a few parts that seem to speak to some of the comments sometimes seen on this forum. Needless to say, I don't think the E.U. Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia are out to use the charge of antisemitism to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel (see the last line of the definition).
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
As Michael Nuemann rightly pointed out in the article I posted above in this thread, all of this is completely irrelevant and not worth taking seriously. Not only that, but following your logic, and by sweeping up criticism of war crimes and crimes against humanity within the dragnet of 'anti-Semitism' it logically becomes a moral imperative to be anti-Semitic.
Israel's apologists have succeeded in rendering the term essentially meaningless.
Interesting article this Yosi. What are your thoughts on it? (And I'm not asking you to regurgitate that bullshit attack on MN that was debunked 11 years ago). I'd like to know what you think about this article:
'Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism...
Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!
I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.
Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.
But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.
Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.
It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.'
...Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.
Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.
There is only one way to guarantee that the term "antisemitism" captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.
For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture....
...If antisemitism is going to be a term of condemnation, then, it must apply beyond explicitly racist acts or thoughts or feelings. But it cannot apply beyond clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews. The Nazis made up historical fantasies to justify their attacks; so do modern antisemites who trust in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So do the closet racists who complain about Jewish dominance of the economy. This is antisemitism in a narrow, negative sense of the word. It is action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews, not because of anything they could avoid doing, but because they are what they are. It also applies to the attitudes that propaganda tries to instill. Though not always explicitly racist, it involves racist motives and the intention to do real damage. Reasonably well-founded opposition to Israeli policies, even if that opposition hurts all Jews, does not fit this description. Neither does simple, harmless dislike of things Jewish.
....If antisemitism is likely to have terrible effects, it is far more likely to have them in Western Europe. The neo-fascist resurgence there is all too real. But is it a danger to Jews? There is no doubt that LePen, for instance, is antisemitic. There is also no evidence whatever that he intends to do anything about it. On the contrary, he makes every effort to pacify the Jews, and perhaps even enlist their help against his real targets, the ‘Arabs’. He would hardly be the first political figure to ally himself with people he disliked. But if he had some deeply hidden plan against the Jews, that *would* be unusual: Hitler and the Russian antisemitic rioters were wonderfully open about their intentions, and they didn’t court Jewish support. And it is a fact that some French Jews see LePen as a positive development or even an ally. (see, for instance, "`LePen is good for us,’ Jewish supporter says", Ha’aretz May 04, 2002, and Mr. Goldenburg’s April 23rd comments on France TV.)
...No doubt many people reject this sort of cold-blooded calculation. They will say that, with the past looming over us, even one antisemitic slur is a terrible thing, and its ugliness is not to be measured by a body count. But if we take a broader view of the matter, antisemitism becomes less, not more important. To regard any shedding of Jewish blood as a world-shattering calamity, one which defies all measurement and comparison, is racism, pure and simple; the valuing of one race’s blood over all others. The fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries and suffered terribly half a century ago doesn’t wipe out the fact that in Europe today, Jews are insiders with far less to suffer and fear than many other ethnic groups. Certainly racist attacks against a well-off minority are just as evil as racist attacks against a poor and powerless minority. But equally evil attackers do not make for equally worrisome attacks.
...Now one might say: whatever the real dangers, these events are truly agonizing for Jews, and bring back unbearably painful memories. That may be true for the very few who still have those memories; it is not true for Jews in general. I am a German Jew, and have a good claim to second-generation, third-hand victimhood. Antisemitic incidents and a climate of rising antisemitism don’t really bother me a hell of a lot. I’m much more scared of really dangerous situations, like driving. Besides, even painful memories and anxieties do not carry much weight against the actual physical suffering inflicted by discrimination against many non-Jews.
This is not to belittle all antisemitism, everywhere. One often hears of vicious antisemites in Poland and Russia, both on the streets and in government. But alarming as this may be, it is also immune to the influence of Israel-Palestine conflicts, and those conflicts are wildly unlikely to affect it one way or another. Moreover, so far as I know, nowhere is there as much violence against Jews as there is against ‘Arabs’. So even if antisemitism is, somewhere, a catastrophically serious matter, we can only conclude that anti-Arab sentiment is far more serious still. And since every antisemitic group is to a far greater extent anti-immigrant and anti-Arab, these groups can be fought, not in the name of antisemitism, but in the defense of Arabs and immigrants. So the antisemitic threat posed by these groups shouldn’t even make us want to focus on antisemitism: they are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants.
In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel’s race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps? Oh, but I forgot. Drop everything. Someone spray-painted antisemitic slogans on a synagogue.'
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada.
Here is the text of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism referenced above. I've bolded a few parts that seem to speak to some of the comments sometimes seen on this forum. Needless to say, I don't think the E.U. Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia are out to use the charge of antisemitism to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel (see the last line of the definition).
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
As Michael Nuemann rightly pointed out in the article I posted above in this thread, all of this is completely irrelevant and not worth taking seriously. Not only that, but following your logic, and by sweeping up criticism of war crimes and crimes against humanity within the dragnet of 'anti-Semitism' it logically becomes a moral imperative to be anti-Semitic.
Israel's apologists have succeeded in rendering the term essentially meaningless.
First, see the last line of the definition. It specifically says, and I quote, "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." So by this logic criticism of specific acts constituting war crimes is not antisemitic. Yet again you stubbornly insist on warping what is said so as to categorically deny that any statements that purport to be criticism of Israel could ever be antisemitic.
Second, since you are now insisting that antisemitism is a moral imperative I will feel free to label you accordingly. You are, by your own admission, an antisemite.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Interesting article this Yosi. What are your thoughts on it? (And I'm not asking you to regurgitate that bullshit attack on MN that was debunked 11 years ago). I'd like to know what you think about this article:
'Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism...
Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!
I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.
Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.
But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.
Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.
It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.'
...Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.
Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.
There is only one way to guarantee that the term "antisemitism" captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.
For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture....
I think the logic is ridiculously shoddy and the whole argument proceeds from an obvious straw man.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I think the logic is ridiculously shoddy and the whole argument proceeds from an obvious straw man.
Of course you do.
And just what 'obvious straw man' are you referring to exactly?
Though I don't really expect any answer from you, as you've still not answered any of my other questions in this thread. You have a habit of making claims and accusations and then going silent when challenged on them.
All told, I think this latest question of mine brings the total to seven. So far you've ducked and evaded every one of them.
Anyway, let's see if you can have the decency to respond to just one of the seven questions: You say MN presents an obvious straw man. What 'obvious straw man' are you referring to exactly?
"Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory."
This. The settlements are a specific policy. Criticism of them is clearly not in itself antisemitic. He wants to put claims of antisemitism in conflict with prevailing liberal norms so he simply asserts that the misapplication of the term by the settlers has merit. But this only makes sense if you accept that antisemitism is whatever any Jew says it is, which is an absurd position.
Or this: "The settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic."
This is a basic part to whole problem. You know, all apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples. You can be anti-apple without being anti-fruit. So you can very easily be anti-settlement without being anti-Zionist. This is elementary logic.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
this only makes sense if you accept that antisemitism is whatever any Jew says it is, which is an absurd position.
That's right, it is absurd, but it's also exactly what's happening. It's also evidenced by your very claims in this thread that my criticisms of Israel can be viewed as anti-Semitic. Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of your own position.
you can very easily be anti-settlement without being anti-Zionist. This is elementary logic.
No, It's not elementary logic. It's an elementary evasion of the truth.
Are the settlements an integral component of Zionist ideology? Yes. Therefore, if you oppose the settlements, and if being anti-Zionist makes you an anti-Semite, then opposing the settlements is anti-Semitic. Perfectly logical.
Comments
Here's the deal, when you start showing the ability to actually engage with what I write rather than pretending that I hold views that I've already explicitly rejected I'll start treating this as a dialogue.
You really have no shame lying through your teeth, do you?
Now why don't you answer my questions, instead of ducking and evading them with lame excuses?
So why don't you answer my questions instead of ducking and evading them with lame excuses?
I asked you to provide concrete written evidence that Atzmon is an anti-Semite. What did he say exactly that was anti-Semitic?
Then you can answer the rest of my questions, instead of making excuse after excuse.
Yet you don't have the common decency to answer a single one of the questions Ive posed to you in return.
So now I'm gonna refuse to respond to any more of your bullshit until you do.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/new-moves-curb-criticism-israel-us-and-canada/10219
New moves to curb criticism of Israel in US and Canada
Kristin Szremski - The Electronic Intifada
29 July 2011
New legislation in the US threatens to conflate campus criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
(Sami Kishawi)
A number of new initiatives to curtail freedom of speech by conflating opposition to Israeli crimes with anti-Semitism are underway in the United States and Canada.
The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) issued a report in early July recommending the adoption of strict new standards defining anti-Semitism and the types of speech and campus activities that would violate them. Its report urged the Canadian government to adopt the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s definition of anti-Semitism (“Report on the Inquiry Panel,” 7 July 2011 [PDF]). That definition suggests that any questioning of whether Israel has the right to exist as a state that privileges Jews over people of other religions or ethnic backgrounds amounts to anti-Semitism.
Though the Canadian group is not linked to the Ottawa government, it has 22 parliamentarians as members. Activities it deems as anti-Semitic and, therefore, calls to be banned, include events such as the Israeli Apartheid Week that was founded in Toronto and now takes place on college campuses internationally every March.
The Canadian report is just the latest attempt at stifling public discourse about Israel. Free speech and the unimpeded exchange of ideas are also under attack on America’s college campuses. Pro-Israel supporters have targeted federal funding for academic institutions, including support for research and academic conferences, under the pretext that criticism of Israel is “hate speech.”
...A “dear colleague” letter issued by the Office of Civil Rights in October 2010 said that discrimination against a student who is a member of a religious group violates Title VI when the discrimination is based on the group’s “actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics … or when it is based upon the student’s actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity,” David Thomas, a US Department of Education spokesman, explained by email.
Bowing to the Zionist lobby
Major pro-Israel organizations such as the Zionist Organization of America and the Anti-Defamation League have lobbied for this re-interpretation for years. Title VI now can be applied to Jewish students who claim universities create hostile campus environments if they allow pro-Palestinian events or even class lectures critical of Israeli policies.
...Dr. Hatem Bazian, a Palestinian-American professor of Near Eastern and Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, who co-founded the Students for Justice in Palestine there in 1993, takes issue with the amended understanding of Title VI. While he agrees that Jewish students, as well as Muslim students, should be protected from discrimination based on their religious identity under Title VI, he believes the reinterpretation is actually being used to silence debate about Israel.
“Attempts to silence opposition to the illegal Israeli occupation and policies is un-American and amounts to political and academic censorship,” Bazian said via email. (Bazian is also the chairman of American Muslims for Palestine, the organization with which this writer is employed).
The Title VI reinterpretation and the subsequent case against Santa Cruz is part of a growing trend of stifling of protected political speech on college campuses. Several lecturers and professors have been censured and even denied tenure because they openly criticized Israeli policies or advocated for Palestinian rights.
Perhaps the most widely publicized cases are those of former DePaul University professor Norman Finkelstein and North Carolina State University professor Terri Ginsberg, both of whom were not given tenure because of their open criticism of Israeli policies in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Ginsberg initiated legal action against North Carolina State and her case is currently on appeal.
Freedom of information denied
The new interpretation has rejuvenated a 29-page complaint brought against the University of California Santa Cruz in June 2009 by lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, the contents of which have been kept secret by the Department of Education and university officials.
...No one contacted from the university or the Department of Education would discuss how an institution can be held liable for something that was not considered to be a violation at the time it occurred.
...If federal investigators find a university to be in violation of Title VI and the institution does not remedy the situation satisfactorily it could lose federal funding. This is a worst-case scenario to be sure, but it is one that seemingly threatens the open exchange of ideas on college campuses.
...“The purpose of a university is to have students wrestle with ideas with which they may disagree, or even better, may make them uncomfortable. To censor ideas is to diminish education, and to treat students as fragile recipients of ‘knowledge,’ rather than young critical thinkers,” they added.
American Muslims for Palestine’s Hatem Bazian said the implications of the re-interpretation go far beyond free speech in the classroom and at extra-curricular events. Funding for scholarly research and academic conferences that bring up “legitimate criticism of Israel” may be at stake, he said.
“The new interpretation will directly, first and foremost, impact those who administer Title VI funding, and they for sure will be more hesitant and will engage in self-censorship in funding research or activities that are critical of Israel,” Bazian said.
Indeed, the Anti-Defamation League was one of 12 national organizations that urged the Department of Education to amend its Title VI interpretation. It may have just been a co-signer in that battle but the ADL has taken the lead in many high-profile cases to stifle free speech and public debate in its hundred-year history.
In March, the ADL, along with the American Jewish Committee and the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, protested an academic conference at the UC Hastings College of the Law in March entitled “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights?” Their protest was so effective the university board voted to remove its name and endorsement for the event and it prevented university Chancellor Frank Wu from making opening remarks.
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
Godfather.
Godfather.
I know one things for sure. If I had people continuously telling me I'm a bigot or racist, I'd most def take a good look at myself and views. But then again, we know u dnt give a shit about anything other then "your" little world u live in. Such a shame cuz u def have passion in what it is you believe, it's too bad u can't use that passion for the good. Open your mind, and your eyes bro. Not for me but for yourself.
"Find a lighthouse in the dark stormy weather, we ALL can use a sedative right now." "Holy rollers sitting with their backs to the middle, all alone and sinking is the bow."
Israel's apologists have succeeded in rendering the term essentially meaningless.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/06/04/what-is-antisemitism/
What Is Antisemitism?
by Michael Neumann
'Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism...
Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!
I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.
Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.
But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.
Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.
It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.'
...Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.
Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.
There is only one way to guarantee that the term "antisemitism" captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.
For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture....
....If antisemitism is likely to have terrible effects, it is far more likely to have them in Western Europe. The neo-fascist resurgence there is all too real. But is it a danger to Jews? There is no doubt that LePen, for instance, is antisemitic. There is also no evidence whatever that he intends to do anything about it. On the contrary, he makes every effort to pacify the Jews, and perhaps even enlist their help against his real targets, the ‘Arabs’. He would hardly be the first political figure to ally himself with people he disliked. But if he had some deeply hidden plan against the Jews, that *would* be unusual: Hitler and the Russian antisemitic rioters were wonderfully open about their intentions, and they didn’t court Jewish support. And it is a fact that some French Jews see LePen as a positive development or even an ally. (see, for instance, "`LePen is good for us,’ Jewish supporter says", Ha’aretz May 04, 2002, and Mr. Goldenburg’s April 23rd comments on France TV.)
...No doubt many people reject this sort of cold-blooded calculation. They will say that, with the past looming over us, even one antisemitic slur is a terrible thing, and its ugliness is not to be measured by a body count. But if we take a broader view of the matter, antisemitism becomes less, not more important. To regard any shedding of Jewish blood as a world-shattering calamity, one which defies all measurement and comparison, is racism, pure and simple; the valuing of one race’s blood over all others. The fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries and suffered terribly half a century ago doesn’t wipe out the fact that in Europe today, Jews are insiders with far less to suffer and fear than many other ethnic groups. Certainly racist attacks against a well-off minority are just as evil as racist attacks against a poor and powerless minority. But equally evil attackers do not make for equally worrisome attacks.
...Now one might say: whatever the real dangers, these events are truly agonizing for Jews, and bring back unbearably painful memories. That may be true for the very few who still have those memories; it is not true for Jews in general. I am a German Jew, and have a good claim to second-generation, third-hand victimhood. Antisemitic incidents and a climate of rising antisemitism don’t really bother me a hell of a lot. I’m much more scared of really dangerous situations, like driving. Besides, even painful memories and anxieties do not carry much weight against the actual physical suffering inflicted by discrimination against many non-Jews.
This is not to belittle all antisemitism, everywhere. One often hears of vicious antisemites in Poland and Russia, both on the streets and in government. But alarming as this may be, it is also immune to the influence of Israel-Palestine conflicts, and those conflicts are wildly unlikely to affect it one way or another. Moreover, so far as I know, nowhere is there as much violence against Jews as there is against ‘Arabs’. So even if antisemitism is, somewhere, a catastrophically serious matter, we can only conclude that anti-Arab sentiment is far more serious still. And since every antisemitic group is to a far greater extent anti-immigrant and anti-Arab, these groups can be fought, not in the name of antisemitism, but in the defense of Arabs and immigrants. So the antisemitic threat posed by these groups shouldn’t even make us want to focus on antisemitism: they are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants.
In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel’s race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps? Oh, but I forgot. Drop everything. Someone spray-painted antisemitic slogans on a synagogue.'
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada.
Second, since you are now insisting that antisemitism is a moral imperative I will feel free to label you accordingly. You are, by your own admission, an antisemite.
And just what 'obvious straw man' are you referring to exactly?
Though I don't really expect any answer from you, as you've still not answered any of my other questions in this thread. You have a habit of making claims and accusations and then going silent when challenged on them.
All told, I think this latest question of mine brings the total to seven. So far you've ducked and evaded every one of them.
Anyway, let's see if you can have the decency to respond to just one of the seven questions: You say MN presents an obvious straw man. What 'obvious straw man' are you referring to exactly?
This. The settlements are a specific policy. Criticism of them is clearly not in itself antisemitic. He wants to put claims of antisemitism in conflict with prevailing liberal norms so he simply asserts that the misapplication of the term by the settlers has merit. But this only makes sense if you accept that antisemitism is whatever any Jew says it is, which is an absurd position.
Or this:
"The settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic."
This is a basic part to whole problem. You know, all apples are fruit but not all fruit are apples. You can be anti-apple without being anti-fruit. So you can very easily be anti-settlement without being anti-Zionist. This is elementary logic.
Here's another example that I already mentioned above:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/new-moves-curb-criticism-israel-us-and-canada/10219
'Title VI now can be applied to Jewish students who claim universities create hostile campus environments if they allow pro-Palestinian events or even class lectures critical of Israeli policies.'
No, It's not elementary logic. It's an elementary evasion of the truth.
Are the settlements an integral component of Zionist ideology? Yes. Therefore, if you oppose the settlements, and if being anti-Zionist makes you an anti-Semite, then opposing the settlements is anti-Semitic.
Perfectly logical.