"Anti-Semitism" as an attack on character

benjs

I just found this.. http://time.com/3340634/yale-chaplain-bruce-shipman-israel-anti-semitism/

Any other examples anyone can think of?

I'm tired of the fallacious use of this term, which is being used to silence discussion far too regularly.

PS, Pre-empting people inquiring about my motives - I'll be fully transparent and admit that I'm writing a short article about this topic, and am reaching out to a community I trust for assistance from those who wish to help.

mickeyrat

So is it any criticism of Israeli Governmental Policy that is charged as anti-semitism? Personally I only saw in that article statements confined to a reason behind the rise not a blanket approval of antisemitism. I saw nothing what so ever suggesting such. Then again , in sexual harassment it is the one who is on the receiving end who is the determiner of that behavior, not the so called perpetrator .

Dont you have to be of Semitic descent to have anti-Semitism apply? Cant you be a racist fucking douchebag who also happens to be Jewish(such as a convert to Judaism) as a religious adherent?
What is the definition of being an Ethnic Jew? How is that proven?

Seems to me that there are purposefully blurred lines. ANY group of people who are unwilling or at least seem to be unwilling to take an objectively honest look at themselves as a whole in order to call a thing an actual thing need to rethink things. How else is growth and forward movement possible?


As a side note, those groups from Africa being held in those camps, I wonder if any or many of those people are Jewish by religious choice? Wouldnt that make Israel's treatment of them AntiSemitic?

benjs

mickeyrat said:

So is it any criticism of Israeli Governmental Policy that is charged as anti-semitism? Personally I only saw in that article statements confined to a reason behind the rise not a blanket approval of antisemitism. I saw nothing what so ever suggesting such. Then again , in sexual harassment it is the one who is on the receiving end who is the determiner of that behavior, not the so called perpetrator .

Dont you have to be of Semitic descent to have anti-Semitism apply? Cant you be a racist fucking douchebag who also happens to be Jewish(such as a convert to Judaism) as a religious adherent?
What is the definition of being an Ethnic Jew? How is that proven?

Seems to me that there are purposefully blurred lines. ANY group of people who are unwilling or at least seem to be unwilling to take an objectively honest look at themselves as a whole in order to call a thing an actual thing need to rethink things. How else is growth and forward movement possible?


As a side note, those groups from Africa being held in those camps, I wonder if any or many of those people are Jewish by religious choice? Wouldnt that make Israel's treatment of them AntiSemitic?

mickeyrat, regarding your first paragraph, I perceived the same from the words Shipman wrote (absence of anti-Jewish sentiment, just merely an observation and hypothesis about the causality related to it). What's disturbing to me are some of those comments - especially the one from Chabad students: "Reverend Bruce Shipman’s justification of anti-semitism by blaming it on Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza is frankly quite disturbing. His argument attempts to justify racism and hate of innocent people, in Israel and around the world." I personally find that response itself quite disturbing: rather than exploring the causality, it is dismissed as fallacious and offensive, and thus used as a deflection, and converted into an ad hominem attack meant to silence Shipman.

The other response that got me fairly heated was the one from David Bernstein of the Washington Post: "Next on Rev. Shipman’s bucket list: blaming women who dress provocatively for rape, blaming blacks for racism because of high crime rates, and blaming gays for homophobia for being ‘flamboyant.'" Why is it that on the topic of Israel and increases in global anti-Jewish sentiment, studying "if this then that" mentality is vetoed? The abortion discussion almost always is accompanied by a discussion relating proper education about safe sex, while safe sex is only one potential reason abortion is being discussed. Based on this, why forbid a person from drawing attention to the fact that Israel - the self-proclaimed Jewish state - has been increasingly violent at a time with rising perceived anti-Jewish sentiment? The other thing which stands out about these examples is that there is no valid action to be applied to the causes of these injustices as rape, racism, or homophobia. In the case of Israel, literally all that is being requested is questioning blind allegiance - and that simple concept has the ability to possibly snuff out anti-Jewish sentiment and is yet being ignored.

As far as modern "anti-Semitism" goes - it's a misnomer at this point in time. By population, there are 7,000,000 Hebrew speakers, compared to the 300,000,000 Arabic speakers and nearly 22,000,000 Amharic speakers, and the definition of a Semite is one who speaks a Semitic language. I would very much love to refer to racist douchebags as racist douchebags, but many Jewish people insist on labelling them as "anti-Semitic" (incorrectly) instead.

Regarding the next paragraph, it's the purposely blurred lines that are so disturbing to me. If one labels themselves as any of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, pro-Palestine, pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian - he or she is then an "anti-Semite", and this fallacious linkage is used as a powerful debate tool. This is why I think the discussion is so critical: as soon as someone brings up a good point, they're shut down because of something as easy as a fairly logical observation of causality? That's absurd, and stifles change.

I sent a link that badbrains posted earlier today to a Jewish friend, which features a video from a self-proclaimed whistleblower who was a soldier in the IDF. I explained to her about the platform he was speaking on - Democracy Now - how it's independently funded, and only by individuals instead of corporations. I told her that the soldier who joins them speaks about how hard it is to get truth out as an Israeli, and how that's a byproduct of inherent Israeli army censorship, or so he says. She asked me whether that was "censorship" or legitimate keeping of secrets, and labelled it bullshit. I told her it's worth watching him talk before passing judgment, and she responded simply that she's "passing judgment, and not watching that crap". I suspect this is a common problem within the Jewish world: how do you inform, when those you'd like to inform (namely, other Jews) cover their ears and speak over you like children, when they're confronted by any unpleasantries you'd like to bring to their attention?

mickeyrat

"As far as modern "anti-Semitism" goes - it's a misnomer at this point in time. By population, there are 7,000,000 Hebrew speakers, compared to the 300,000,000 Arabic speakers and nearly 22,000,000 Amharic speakers, and the definition of a Semite is one who speaks a Semitic language. I would very much love to refer to racist douchebags as racist douchebags, but many Jewish people insist on labelling them as "anti-Semitic" (incorrectly) instead. "



So then the segment of Israeli society that are so derogatory about Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular are in fact then AntiSemites?

benjs

mickeyrat said:

"As far as modern "anti-Semitism" goes - it's a misnomer at this point in time. By population, there are 7,000,000 Hebrew speakers, compared to the 300,000,000 Arabic speakers and nearly 22,000,000 Amharic speakers, and the definition of a Semite is one who speaks a Semitic language. I would very much love to refer to racist douchebags as racist douchebags, but many Jewish people insist on labelling them as "anti-Semitic" (incorrectly) instead. "



So then the segment of Israeli society that are so derogatory about Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular are in fact then AntiSemites?

If you go by the technical (original) meaning of anti-Semitic, then believe it or not - yes, you can be an Israeli anti-Semite. In terms of the blurring of lines between Jews and Semites - that came in the mid-1800s from a philosopher/writer/linguist called Ernest Renan who began to use the terms interchangeably based on a false equivalence between Jewish people (whose characteristics he seemingly lifted from the myth of the "Wandering Jew"), and a Semite (whose characteristics he based on his own studies relating to Semitic culture and languages).

You can also make the claim that there are anti-Semitic Israeli Jews, even by the modern interpretation of anti-Semitism. This is visible in the recorded mistreatment of Mizrahi Jews (Jewish descendants of, or new migrants from Arabic-speaking countries) as they were often treated like second-class citizens within Israel - especially at its inception. One essay I'm reading right now goes as far as to say that many illegal settlements were made not only to house the Zionist believers in expansionism, but also as a way to eradicate the internal racism issues in Israel, by simply incentivizing the Mizrahi Jews to enter communities at the fringe of Israeli society and the outermost borders of Israel itself.

mickeyrat

Based off what I see YOU post, you are a person willing to look objectively at a situation and if the situation is wrong , say so.

To be critical of self is vitally important. Shows an open mind to change as needed. It seems to me that collectively Jews have a need to protect themselves from the truth of what they are living?

I very much appreciate your perspective on things. Good luck on your paper.

benjs

mickeyrat said:

Based off what I see YOU post, you are a person willing to look objectively at a situation and if the situation is wrong , say so.

To be critical of self is vitally important. Shows an open mind to change as needed. It seems to me that collectively Jews have a need to protect themselves from the truth of what they are living?

I very much appreciate your perspective on things. Good luck on your paper.

Thanks for your kind words Mickey, much appreciated! To be fair, I haven't ever really considered this being critical of myself. I'm a person, not a Jew.

mickeyrat

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

Based off what I see YOU post, you are a person willing to look objectively at a situation and if the situation is wrong , say so.

To be critical of self is vitally important. Shows an open mind to change as needed. It seems to me that collectively Jews have a need to protect themselves from the truth of what they are living?

I very much appreciate your perspective on things. Good luck on your paper.

Thanks for your kind words Mickey, much appreciated! To be fair, I haven't ever really considered this being critical of myself. I'm a person, not a Jew.

I think I meant more along the lines of self-assessment but your point of how you view yourself is well taken. Speaks in part to what the larger issue is doesnt it?

gimmesometruth27

you can criticize a government without hating the people that live there or the religion they follow. even when religion is the driving motivation of said government's policies.

i hate the policies of the israeli government, and specifically, the likud party. doesn't make mean i hate jewish people.

benjs

gimmesometruth27 said:

you can criticize a government without hating the people that live there or the religion they follow. even when religion is the driving motivation of said government's policies.

i hate the policies of the israeli government, and specifically, the likud party. doesn't make mean i hate jewish people.

That's exactly it. To me, it feels like the mainstream media often suppresses this distinction and it's a way of controlling the direction of the debate (or snuffing the debate, as I said) unfortunately. And yes - as a Jew, it would be fairly hypocritical to assume I'm anti-Semitic because I hate the policies of the Israeli government. As an example of snuffing the debate though, when I suggested in response to a Toronto Sun article regarding Israel that people question the mainstream rhetoric and seek information from multiple angles and decide whether Israel's actions are aligned with a humanitarian perspective, I was first called a "Hamas writer", and was then told that I was a "self-loathing Jew" with a "profound identity crisis" by the author of the article herself. I found that quite surreal.

PJ_Soul

It does bother me when people lump governments and the people governed by them together as tightly as a lot of people do with Israelis. I think it's a distinction that can't be left for people to assume. I think it's important to always qualify that (if that's how you feel about it). Not doing so actually does have a role in fueling anti-semitism, even if the speaker (or whatever) had no intention of doing so.

If I see someone who is coming off as anti-semitic, I'm going to say something. Hopefully I have it wrong every time, but people have to be as careful with not sounding racist as they are expected to do with other ethnic groups. For some reason, many people seem less cautious and more callous about how they are voicing their opinions when it comes to Israelis than they are about other groups that have been subjected to discrimination and atrocities. I wonder why that is???

blueandwhite

benjs said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

you can criticize a government without hating the people that live there or the religion they follow. even when religion is the driving motivation of said government's policies.

i hate the policies of the israeli government, and specifically, the likud party. doesn't make mean i hate jewish people.

That's exactly it. To me, it feels like the mainstream media often suppresses this distinction and it's a way of controlling the direction of the debate (or snuffing the debate, as I said) unfortunately. And yes - as a Jew, it would be fairly hypocritical to assume I'm anti-Semitic because I hate the policies of the Israeli government. As an example of snuffing the debate though, when I suggested in response to a Toronto Sun article regarding Israel that people question the mainstream rhetoric and seek information from multiple angles and decide whether Israel's actions are aligned with a humanitarian perspective, I was first called a "Hamas writer", and was then told that I was a "self-loathing Jew" with a "profound identity crisis" by the author of the article herself. I found that quite surreal.

The biggest mistake was responding to a Toronto Sun article in the first place. That newspaper has worked hard to earn its moniker as the "Fox news of the North". Challenging the status quo on the Sun forums is akin to throwing yourself to the wolves. I always find it ironic when a crowd of overt racists like the folks you find on the Toronto Sun forums accuse others of anti-Semitism. Criticizing repeated human rights violations by Israel doesn't make you an anti-Semite, it makes you a human-being with a conscience.

benjs

blueandwhite said:

benjs said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

you can criticize a government without hating the people that live there or the religion they follow. even when religion is the driving motivation of said government's policies.

i hate the policies of the israeli government, and specifically, the likud party. doesn't make mean i hate jewish people.

That's exactly it. To me, it feels like the mainstream media often suppresses this distinction and it's a way of controlling the direction of the debate (or snuffing the debate, as I said) unfortunately. And yes - as a Jew, it would be fairly hypocritical to assume I'm anti-Semitic because I hate the policies of the Israeli government. As an example of snuffing the debate though, when I suggested in response to a Toronto Sun article regarding Israel that people question the mainstream rhetoric and seek information from multiple angles and decide whether Israel's actions are aligned with a humanitarian perspective, I was first called a "Hamas writer", and was then told that I was a "self-loathing Jew" with a "profound identity crisis" by the author of the article herself. I found that quite surreal.

The biggest mistake was responding to a Toronto Sun article in the first place. That newspaper has worked hard to earn its moniker as the "Fox news of the North". Challenging the status quo on the Sun forums is akin to throwing yourself to the wolves. I always find it ironic when a crowd of overt racists like the folks you find on the Toronto Sun forums accuse others of anti-Semitism. Criticizing repeated human rights violations by Israel doesn't make you an anti-Semite, it makes you a human-being with a conscience.

That's exactly it. That being said, it stirs something inside me when I see fallacious arguments used to sway public opinion when it leads (whether directly or not) to what I perceive to be the justification of murderous acts by Israel's government, and in times like that, I'm not of the opinion that silence is a viable option. I feel this obligation as a human, a Canadian, and a Jew, so in fact, I would feel a "profound identity crisis" if I opted not to speak up. My comments ended up at the top of the "Best" list at the time the comments were locked (likely because of me), which I consider a victory. Irrational people will move on, rational people might start to question their preconceived notions as a result. But no harm; I know I wrote respectfully and opted against responding what I truly felt about the author and her followers, instead focusing on the issues at hand.

benjs

PJ_Soul said:

It does bother me when people lump governments and the people governed by them together as tightly as a lot of people do with Israelis. I think it's a distinction that can't be left for people to assume. I think it's important to always qualify that (if that's how you feel about it). Not doing so actually does have a role in fueling anti-semitism, even if the speaker (or whatever) had no intention of doing so.

If I see someone who is coming off as anti-semitic, I'm going to say something. Hopefully I have it wrong every time, but people have to be as careful with not sounding racist as they are expected to do with other ethnic groups. For some reason, many people seem less cautious and more callous about how they are voicing their opinions when it comes to Israelis than they are about other groups that have been subjected to discrimination and atrocities. I wonder why that is???

In regards to your first paragraph: Israel is a democracy, and wears that label proudly. As a result, its political leaders ought to represent the collective will of its people. When looking at Israel's heavy-handed response to the three kidnapped and murdered Israeli teenagers (which was not verified as being affiliated with Hamas at the inception of the operation), it wreaked of disproportionality and collective punishment, and seemed to represent a complete lack of concern for human life within Gaza. Clearly the Israeli government disagrees with me (or is unwilling to publicly state their true intentions, if you want to go with the 'hidden motive' angle) as evidenced by their continued presence in Gaza in spite of almost unanimous global condemnation, and polls such as this one (http://en.idi.org.il/about-idi/news-and-updates/july-2014-peace-index/) suggest that its citizens feel similarly. These are a few reasons that in the case of lumping governments and its people - I feel that it is appropriate to do so for this situation in Israel. I don't feel that this is an unreasonable generalization, nor do I feel that it is a presentation of anti-Jewish sentiment.

That being said, if I see someone who is presenting what I perceive to be anti-Jewish sentiment, I'm more than ready to speak up as well. In terms of reasons for the disproportionate response to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, I think there are likely a number of reasons, but here are some that jump to mind:

1) With allusions being made on a fairly regular basis to South African apartheid when discussing the situation, it could be a response to collective guilt for allowing inactivity previously, in an effort not to allow the same atrocities to continue.

2) With this particular perceived oppressor/oppressed scenario, there is an assumption that the dissemination of information is particularly difficult for those residing within Gaza. Hence, if people are stripped of their voices, in an era of global involvement, the onus is (rightly) shifted to those of us in the diaspora to help spread information.

3) Fallacious arguments or distractions are used on a regular basis to condemn Palestinian actions (such as the false equivalence that pro-Palestinian = pro-Hamas = anti-Israel = anti-Jewish, and that all of these terms should be under the umbrella of anti-Semitism) and used to justify brutality, while Israel's condemnations by numerous countries and at UN Security Council meetings are regularly ignored by Israel, and have been practically since its inception.

4) The perception of Jewish influence around the world in the media should not be considered factual necessarily, but I typically follow the "where there's smoke, there's fire" mentality. If you are of the opinion that there is a bias inherently present in mainstream media, speaking up in a noticeable way is bound to feel like fighting a 400 pound gorilla. Hence, organizations sprout up to do so collectively, and those who choose to remain independent in their attempts to share facts must do so loudly.

Do I assume that there is anti-Jewish sentiment present as well? Absolutely. But I believe it's largely blown out of proportion, and that much of it is a byproduct of Israel's actions and policies, and global Jewry's unwavering support of them.