Defining Anti-Semitism

[ComradeMan]

I know this is going to be polemic but let's work on it.

It's seems that a lot of people have mixed up ideas about what Anti-Semitism is, and on this forum it's a bannable offence.

Currently a debate is running on, what seem to me, is an Anti-Semitic argument- but there is no definition here of Anti-Semitism.

To me the following constitute anti-Semitism,

1. Denying the Holocaust.
2. Equating Jewishness with Zionism and using the world Israeli Jews instead of the Israeli Government etc.
3. Talking about Jewish conspiracies etc.
4. Saying that Jews use the Holocaust to justify the actions of Israel.
5. Denying the historical relevance of the Holocaust to the subsequent perpetuation of a Jewish safe-haven/homeland (I don't mean justifying the brutal actions of an Israeli statist regime).
6. Denying the existence of a Jewsh people, whether they be linked genetically, religiously, culturally, historically or any combination of the aforesaid. This also flies in the face of scientific and historical evidence.
7. Supporting groups who deliberately use Anti-Semitic rhetoric.
8. The normal racist bullshit about Jews being money-grabbers and having big noses etc....
9. Using theological arguments, i.e. Qu'ranic Anti-Semitism or Catholic deicide arguments to justify the abuse of Jewish people.

To me Anti-Semitism is not.

1. Meaningful critique of the policies of the Israeli regime.
2. Theological critique of Judaism.
3. Not liking a given person of Jewish origin for whatever reason other than his or her Jewishness, e.g., "I don't like Woody Allen films"= Fair enough, but "I hate that little Jewish schmuck Wood Allen" = Anti-Semitism.

Any thoughts.... let's keep it civil....

[IcarusAngel]

Politically correct nonsense. Almost anybody could fall into your definition of "anti-semitism" merely by speaking. How do you know someone is anti-semetic if they say Jews when they mean Israeli state?

[ComradeMan]

Politically correct nonsense. Almost anybody could fall into your definition of "anti-semitism" merely by speaking. How do you know someone is anti-semetic if they say Jews when they mean Israeli state?


Well,

Point 1. There is a lot of Anti-Semitism around....

Point 2. If someone were to use the word Africans or "Black (people)" when criticising an African government for example would it not be the same?

Anyone of reasonable intelligence who enters in a political debate should know that Jews do not equal Israeli Government inasmuch as Black people do not equal some African dictatorship of "Hispanics" do not equal a South American one etc...

[Dimentio]

Antisemitism is the belief that Jews somehow control the world. I think that is the essential part that separates antisemitism from all other forms of racism.

I don't really think that people using racial slur-words against Jews or stating that they dislike Jews could be called antisemites just for that. Of course, they are still racist and need to be challenged to change their opinions, or to stop spit racial hatred, but they are not antisemitic simply because of that.

[Dean]

4. Saying that Jews use the Holocaust to justify the actions of Israel.
5. Denying the historical relevance of the Holocaust to the subsequent perpetuation of a Jewish safe-haven/homeland (I don't mean justifying the brutal actions of an Israeli statist regime).
6. Denying the existence of a Jewsh people, whether they be linked genetically, religiously, culturally, historically or any combination of the aforesaid. This also flies in the face of scientific and historical evidence.
7. Supporting groups who deliberately use Anti-Semitic rhetoric.

This is ridiculous. You've systematically attacked and condemned palestinian liberation movements, while failing to seriously address the leftist perspectives around the issue. To you, it is more important to attack leftist positions about Israel than it is to actually posit your own agenda or theory.

Who gives a fuck what you think is anti-semitism. You are woefully single-issue and racist, and it is impossible to take your middle-of-the-road petty liberalism seriously for this reason.

[Die Rote Fahne]

1. Denying the Holocaust. --Agreed


2. Equating Jewishness with Zionism and using the world Israeli Jews instead of the Israeli Government etc. -- Agreed


3. Talking about Jewish conspiracies etc. --Talking about? No. Believing yes.


4. Saying that Jews use the Holocaust to justify the actions of Israel. --Not all Jews do, but the Zionists do use the holocaust to justify what they do. Not all the time, but they do.


5. Denying the historical relevance of the Holocaust to the subsequent perpetuation of a Jewish safe-haven/homeland (I don't mean justifying the brutal actions of an Israeli statist regime). --Well, what about those who believe the Jews could have lived in peace with Palestinians without creating a "Jewish State", by simply just immigrating to Palestine.


6. Denying the existence of a Jewsh people, whether they be linked genetically, religiously, culturally, historically or any combination of the aforesaid. This also flies in the face of scientific and historical evidence. -- Saying that Jews don't exist is what your saying? Agreed.


7. Supporting groups who deliberately use Anti-Semitic rhetoric. -- Well, that depends. You have to ask "why" they use the rhetoric. Is it because of some stupid reason like the neo-nazis? Or years of hatred and pain due to bombardment and occupation like many Palestinians?


8. The normal racist bullshit about Jews being money-grabbers and having big noses etc.... -- agreed.


9. Using theological arguments, i.e. Qu'ranic Anti-Semitism or Catholic deicide arguments to justify the abuse of Jewish people. -- No abuse of any group of people is justified.

[ComradeMan]

This is ridiculous. You've systematically attacked and condemned palestinian liberation movements, while failing to seriously address the leftist perspectives around the issue. To you, it is more important to attack leftist positions about Israel than it is to actually posit your own agenda or theory.

Who gives a fuck what you think is anti-semitism. You are woefully single-issue and racist, and it is impossible to take your middle-of-the-road petty liberalism seriously for this reason.

Excuse me, but this was not a thread about the Palestinian issue, your automatically linking it to Anti-Semitism reveals a lot in itself.

You jump on the Israeli issue straight away whilst ignoring the Anti-Semitism that goes on in the rest of the world, and has gone on, for centuries.

As for leftist positions about Israel, well, firstly there is no ONE leftist position and secondly this is not a thread about Israel. My position is quite clear.

As for the rest of your foul-mouthed rant... quit flaming and trolling and deal with issues without jumping blindly on bandwagons. Really, you ought to know better.
:)

[mykittyhasaboner]

Excusme me, but this was not a thread about the Palestinian issue,

If your going to start a thread on Anti-Semitism, and Israel, then it certainly is about the "Palestinian issue" as well.

[ComradeMan]

If your going to start a thread on Anti-Semitism, and Israel, then it certainly is about the "Palestinian issue" as well.

The thread was about Anti-Semitism, in regard to other things going on in the forum at the moment. However, the person to whom I was responding made no effort to address the points but launched straight into an ad hominem which was also leading off topic.

The constant relating everything Jewish to Israel is also a problem.

[ls]

The thread was about Anti-Semitism, in regard to other things going on in the forum at the moment. However, the person to whom I was responding made no effort to address the points but launched straight into an ad hominem which was also leading off topic.

The constant relating everything Jewish to Israel is also a problem.

Well, are you going to address Propagandhi's quite balanced post? :rolleyes:

Also, what the hell is "denying Jews exist" and show us an example of this, because I'd sure as hell like to see that.

[ComradeMan]

Old wine...

deztmWvm88k

In new bottles....


3Eu6_P8rNpk


mi0nDoG5bRU

[ComradeMan]

Well, are you going to address Propagandhi's quite balanced post? :rolleyes:

Also, what the hell is "denying Jews exist" and show us an example of this, because I'd sure as hell like to see that.


See Khad's comments in the thread "Favoritism".

"2) Accusations of anti-Semitism. If this poster is referring to my thread on the myth of the diaspora, only someone declaring an intent to troll could pull an anti-Semitism accusation out of it. All it is pointing out is that the history of Judaism is one of conversion, not of exodus and that the Zionist construct of racial Jewishness is is not supported in history. If Kleber indeed opposes my point on this, then it could mean that he subscribes to the anti-Semitic myth of the Jews as a trans-historic race."

[Dimentio]

Also, what the hell is "denying Jews exist" and show us an example of this, because I'd sure as hell like to see that.

I would guess that he is meaning the claims which are stating that the modern-day Jewish population is descended to a large extent from Berber and Khazar origin.

I don't understand how that argument could be perceived as a negation of the existence of Jews though. Even if most Jews today would have been descended from Eskimoos or lizards (which some idiots actually believe), they would still have the right to define themselves as Jews. All groups have the right to define themselves, no matter their genetic ancestral origin.

[ComradeMan]

I would guess that he is meaning the claims which are stating that the modern-day Jewish population is descended to a large extent from Berber and Khazar origin.

I don't understand how that argument could be perceived as a negation of the existence of Jews though. Even if most Jews today would have been descended from Eskimoos or lizards (which some idiots actually believe), they would still have the right to define themselves as Jews. All groups have the right to define themselves, no matter their genetic ancestral origin.


Dimentio, you are quite right in many ways. But sadly, it is something that is often used against Jewish populations in some way to somehow deny the Jews can even call themselves a people.

[Dimentio]

Dimentio, you are quite right in many ways. But sadly, it is something that is often used against Jewish populations in some way to somehow deny the Jews can even call themselves a people.

Yes, but its so very idiotic to do so. People ain't consisting of some sort of "pure, untainted line", but of a diverse input of different groups during millennia - that is the truth for all peoples.

If people choose to use the Khazar link (which is shaky at best) to deny the Jews the right to define themselves as Jews, it is tragic. But abuse of theories should not be used to politisise what ought not to be politisised.

[Agnapostate]

Actually, there's very little to dispute in the underlying principles that you advanced. It's simply that we know that you won't adhere to them yourself, and will disingenuously extend them into other areas.

"Leftist" anti-Semitism, to the extent that it even exists, is based on little more than stereotypes. As consistent anti-imperialists, many progressives wish to criticize Israeli state policy and find reference to "Israeli Jews" a convenient way of categorizing its creators, since, after all, they primarily are Israeli Jews.

This usually doesn't extent far beyond reading an anti-Palestinian jingoist piece and thinking "Oh, of course," when seeing that the author is Steinberg, Goldman, or Levitt. And this is fairly unremarkable, to be frank. Plenty of rightists allege on a daily basis that blacks support the president merely because he is also black. And it is easily matched (and exceeded, honestly) by the anger and bitterness felt by an AIPAC member when he sees a pro-Palestinian article written by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Tony Judt, etc., and scoffing at these "race traitors." The assumption that Jews must adhere to an ideological conformity is itself based on the implication that they are simpleminded.

[Glenn Beck]

2. Equating Jewishness with Zionism and using the world Israeli Jews instead of the Israeli Government etc.

So we can't make sociological observations about the general attitudes and demographics of the Israeli Jewish population and thus examine the roots of support for Israeli government policies and the inequalities of Israeli society without being antisemitic? Well gee that's a bummer.


4. Saying that Jews use the Holocaust to justify the actions of Israel.

What is antisemitic about this? Is it the use of the imprecise term "Jews" as opposed to "supporters of Israel", or even "pro-Zionist Jews"? If that is the case, such a characterization is certainly inaccurate because quite a few Jews don't use the Holocaust as justification for the policies of Israel. Some Jews, like professor Norman Finkelstein, not only do not do so but actively decry the use of the Holocaust in such a manner.

Do you consider the very assertion that some Jews, (specifically, a subset of those Jews that support the state of Israel) as well as some non-Jews use the Holocaust to justify Israeli policy an antisemitic assertion? Would Dr. Finkelstein then be an antisemitic Jew, perhaps a "self-hating Jew"? If you believe this to be the case, do you also consider the label of "self-hating Jew" to be an antisemitic one? If applicable, how do you reconcile this contradiction?


5. Denying the historical relevance of the Holocaust to the subsequent perpetuation of a Jewish safe-haven/homeland (I don't mean justifying the brutal actions of an Israeli statist regime).

This is another ambiguous criterion. By this do you mean denying the fact that there is any relationship between the Holocaust and the political appeal of Zionism (a form of Jewish nationalism advocating the establishment of a state with a Jewish national character in Palestine)? If so, I'm not aware of anyone that makes such a ludicrous claim, besides those that deny the Holocaust to begin with.

Did you instead mean to assert that the denial that the Holocaust justifies the establishment of a state with a Jewish national character in Palestine is antisemitic? If this is the case, then anti-Zionism is antisemitic by definition because it opposes the idea of such a state (though not the possibility of Jewish residence in Palestine).


6. Denying the existence of a Jewsh people, whether they be linked genetically, religiously, culturally, historically or any combination of the aforesaid. This also flies in the face of scientific and historical evidence.

This is quite clear. You are asserting that any attempt to question the dominant Zionist interpretation of Jewish identity in the terms of nationalism as a single unified "people" with an inherent national identity is inherently antisemitic. Given that a great many Jews hold interpretations of the nature of Jewish identity that differ from this nationalist narrative, please revisit my prior question about the labeling of "self-hating Jews", namely whether it is appropriate in this instance and whether you consider it an antisemitic label.


7. Supporting groups who deliberately use Anti-Semitic rhetoric.

So, given that this is in your list of antisemitic rhetoric, would I be an antisemite for supporting a group that supports another group that endorses the opinion of a particular scholar (say, Noam Chomsky) who deliberately advocates a perspective that you label antisemitic (say, #4 maybe)?

[Dean]

Excuse me, but this was not a thread about the Palestinian issue, your automatically linking it to Anti-Semitism reveals a lot in itself.

You jump on the Israeli issue straight away whilst ignoring the Anti-Semitism that goes on in the rest of the world, and has gone on, for centuries.

As for leftist positions about Israel, well, firstly there is no ONE leftist position and secondly this is not a thread about Israel. My position is quite clear.

As for the rest of your foul-mouthed rant... quit flaming and trolling and deal with issues without jumping blindly on bandwagons. Really, you ought to know better.
:)

You should not post arguments calling racist the criticism of the creation of a white-nationalist regime, because that is a wholly disgusting argument to be made. You might as well be bashing Malcolm X for his very realistic argument against White Nationalism, while ignoring the existence of real, material and racist oppression.

Furthermore, you cannot expect people not to respond angrily to such posts as if we were going to allow you to creep onto the boards some very vile myths about the "haven state" without responses from a materialist perspective. You seem shocked that people are responding to your posts which broadly call us antisemites. Its ridiculous.

Rhetorical racism is not an issue that leftists generally care much about. That is precisely what you are describing. We are concerned with real, material and institutionalized racism. You don't point to a single example of that, though they definitely exist.


Seriously, do not expect us to play along with your simple-minded, whiney rants about anti-semitism when you know damn well that as leftists, we are predominantly concerned with the real world and not with some douchebag whining about Jewish bankers. Since you are clearly concerned with the existence of White Nationalist state as part of your "antisemitism" exposition, discussion of what the material character of Israel is is definitely important - in fact, you directly reference that point in calling it a "haven."

You don't have a leg to stand on.

[mikelepore]

Such terms as racism or anti-Semitism acquire their meaning when people assert that characteristics are biologically determined. If someone says they hate the way the people of another cultural group think, speak, act, etc., but if they also realize that they're talking about a learned behavior, then such terms as racism or anti-Semitism don't apply, correctly speaking. It's when someone believes that a demographic group is a certain way "naturally", intrinsically, that's when it becomes a form of bigotry and becomes a problem. If you hate me for my learned behaviors, no matter which or how many of those learned behaviors you are refering to, that's not really a social problem. For example, to say that people who prefer classical music are fools would be unsubstantiated but it wouldn't be racism; to say that people with brown eyes are fools would be racism.

[graffic]

What is antisemitic about this? Is it the use of the imprecise term "Jews" as opposed to "supporters of Israel", or even "pro-Zionist Jews"? If that is the case, such a characterization is certainly inaccurate because quite a few Jews don't use the Holocaust as justification for the policies of Israel. Some Jews, like professor Norman Finkelstein, not only do not do so but actively decry the use of the Holocaust in such a manner.


Norman Finkelstein is an arsehole who loves the attention he gets by saying borderline anti-semitic things that wind people up, despite being Jewish, which he makes clear at every opportunity "I can only say these things because I'm Jewish. Look at me!". A lot of the time when people talk about Jews "using" the holocaust to justify crimes of the Israeli state they say Zionist world conspiracy in the same breath or go further and say the Jews organised the holocaust so they could get the holy land back. So I can see why it makes a lot of Jew's feel uncomfortable.



This is another ambiguous criterion. By this do you mean denying the fact that there is any relationship between the Holocaust and the political appeal of Zionism (a form of Jewish nationalism advocating the establishment of a state with a Jewish national character in Palestine)?

Of course, the realities of anti-semitism in the former half of the twentieth century culminating in the holocaust made a lot of Jews much more self-conscious and they saw Israel as a lifeline in keeping the Jewish nation alive. They didn't dream about violating Palestinian human rights, but that's a separate issue.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, but its so very idiotic to do so. People ain't consisting of some sort of "pure, untainted line", but of a diverse input of different groups during millennia - that is the truth for all peoples.

If people choose to use the Khazar link (which is shaky at best) to deny the Jews the right to define themselves as Jews, it is tragic. But abuse of theories should not be used to politisise what ought not to be politisised.


But isn't that Schlomo Sand's sort of idea? By saying that the very idea of a Jewish people is made up?


As for other comments about this being an attack on RevLeft- and the neg rep comments- well, how preposterous! These are well known bases of Anti-Semitism and this was an oppurtunity to discuss them, as some, like Propaghandi have done.

I see that straight away people jump to conclusions and so on about some kind of intent of the post.

If we are to relate this to RevLeft however, one might question why some users have been banned for Anti-Semitism and then unbanned without any restriction. ???

But back to the post, could we discuss the points in hand without ad hominems and wild accusations...

[Devrim]

7. Supporting groups who deliberately use Anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Much of the left does this in its support for groups such as Hezbollah and HAMAS. Whilst I disagree with this position, I in no way feel that it reflects anti-Semitism, and is just a part of the left's so-called 'anti-imperialism'.
Devrim

[9]

No one has the right to define as a people a group which does not constitute "a people" - which comes from many different peoples with little or no interconnection. Insisting upon the existence of a "Jewish race" is what anti-Semites do. It is also what Zionists do. It is also what ComradeMan does. You do the math.






6. Denying the existence of a Jewsh people, whether they be linked genetically, religiously, culturally, historically or any combination of the aforesaid. This also flies in the face of scientific and historical evidence.
-- Saying that Jews don't exist is what your saying? Agreed.


No, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews of the world constitute a unified "people", which is just a euphemism for "race". He is arguing that it is anti-Semitic to deny the existence of a Jewish race, and the irony of that is really unparalleled.

[Dimentio]

But isn't that Schlomo Sand's sort of idea? By saying that the very idea of a Jewish people is made up?


As for other comments about this being an attack on RevLeft- and the neg rep comments- well, how preposterous! These are well known bases of Anti-Semitism and this was an oppurtunity to discuss them, as some, like Propaghandi have done.

I see that straight away people jump to conclusions and so on about some kind of intent of the post.

If we are to relate this to RevLeft however, one might question why some users have been banned for Anti-Semitism and then unbanned without any restriction. ???

But back to the post, could we discuss the points in hand without ad hominems and wild accusations...

The ideas about all peoples are ultimately made up.

The moderator who banned that user whom I think you're referring too was too quick, not taking up a poll but making a decision independently. I think it is being corrected right now.

[ComradeMan]

Let's see... well there are some interesting and constructive views here, but some of the hysterical strawmen are quite diappointing too.

Let's begin

Apikoros
No, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews of the world constitute a unified "people", which is just a euphemism for "race". He is arguing that it is anti-Semitic to deny the existence of a Jewish race, and the irony of that is really unparalleled.


Not at all. Most Jewish people would agree that a Jewish race does not exist, but there is a difference between talking about a race and a people. An American race, an Italian race and an Arab race do not exist either as such but it's not unreasonable to talk about an American people etc. What I am talking about the perpetuation of this anti-semitic idea that the Jewish people are somehow a creation of Zionism. No doubt certain Zionists do adhere to this but then nutters come in all shapes and sizes. Hitler spoke about the German people, because Hitler was an evil racist lunatic does not mean that the German people do not exist, does it?
People is not a euphemism for race, as strawmen go that was pretty pathetic.

Agnapostate

Actually, there's very little to dispute in the underlying principles that you advanced. It's simply that we know that you won't adhere to them yourself, and will disingenuously extend them into other areas.


Well I'm glad to see we agree on the principles. What do "we" know? We know nothing. That's a logically fallacious argument to some future you deem irrefutable. Adhere what to myself exactly? This whole thread was in the context of the forum and the greater world, not the ideosyncracies of myself or any one person in particular.

Glenn Beck

2. Equating Jewishness with Zionism and using the world Israeli Jews instead of the Israeli Government etc.
So we can't make sociological observations about the general attitudes and demographics of the Israeli Jewish population and thus examine the roots of support for Israeli government policies and the inequalities of Israeli society without being antisemitic? Well gee that's a bummer.


Well it may be a bummer, but you might wish to take note of the fact that all Jews are neither Israelis and/or Zionists. Most of what I read about "Israeli Jews" makes no attempt to differentiate along any kind of sociological line. It's a bit like someone saying that all British people are imperialists because the British (democratically elected majority) government is imperialistic. Would that stand up in court? No, it wouldn't! So why should the same apply to Jews who are not even Israeli citizens, and probably a large number of Israelis too- including well-known voices within the Jewish world?

4. Saying that Jews use the Holocaust to justify the actions of Israel.
What is antisemitic about this? Is it the use of the imprecise term "Jews" as opposed to "supporters of Israel", or even "pro-Zionist Jews"? If that is the case, such a characterization is certainly inaccurate because quite a few Jews don't use the Holocaust as justification for the policies of Israel. Some Jews, like professor Norman Finkelstein, not only do not do so but actively decry the use of the Holocaust in such a manner.
Do you consider the very assertion that some Jews, (specifically, a subset of those Jews that support the state of Israel) as well as some non-Jews use the Holocaust to justify Israeli policy an antisemitic assertion? Would Dr. Finkelstein then be an antisemitic Jew, perhaps a "self-hating Jew"? If you believe this to be the case, do you also consider the label of "self-hating Jew" to be an antisemitic one? If applicable, how do you reconcile this contradiction?


No I don't, but there is a difference between saying some Jews... and Jews- which you know full well. It's the difference between saying some Mexicans are drug-dealers and "Hispanics are criminals"... if you catch the drift. As for Finkelstein, well you picked a good one there. As for self-hating Jew, why should it be a contradiction? Self-hate exists in all shapes and forms but this is a forum for politics not psychological analysis.


5. Denying the historical relevance of the Holocaust to the subsequent perpetuation of a Jewish safe-haven/homeland (I don't mean justifying the brutal actions of an Israeli statist regime).
This is another ambiguous criterion. By this do you mean denying the fact that there is any relationship between the Holocaust and the political appeal of Zionism (a form of Jewish nationalism advocating the establishment of a state with a Jewish national character in Palestine)? If so, I'm not aware of anyone that makes such a ludicrous claim, besides those that deny the Holocaust to begin with.
Did you instead mean to assert that the denial that the Holocaust justifies the establishment of a state with a Jewish national character in Palestine is antisemitic? If this is the case, then anti-Zionism is antisemitic by definition because it opposes the idea of such a state (though not the possibility of Jewish residence in Palestine).


I see you sneaking in weasel words here. I said that the Holocaust has undeniable historical relevence that has an effect on the analysis of Israeli politics thereafter. It surprises me on a leftist forum that such a cause-and-effect analysis would be deemed ludicrous. History can neither be justified nor condemned but rather explained. By the way, Zionism existed before the Holocaust in many forms.


6. Denying the existence of a Jewsh people, whether they be linked genetically, religiously, culturally, historically or any combination of the aforesaid. This also flies in the face of scientific and historical evidence.
This is quite clear. You are asserting that any attempt to question the dominant Zionist interpretation of Jewish identity in the terms of nationalism as a single unified "people" with an inherent national identity is inherently antisemitic. Given that a great many Jews hold interpretations of the nature of Jewish identity that differ from this nationalist narrative, please revisit my prior question about the labeling of "self-hating Jews", namely whether it is appropriate in this instance and whether you consider it an antisemitic label.


This is not a Zionist interpretation of anything. The Jewish people spoke about the "Jewish people" long before Zionism. I do not deny that Zionists have hijacked the idea, but that does not change the fact that there is a Jewish people (not race) with a thread of commonality that runs through their various expressions of culture and that has existed for thousands of years. Bit of a strawman here....

7. Supporting groups who deliberately use Anti-Semitic rhetoric.
So, given that this is in your list of antisemitic rhetoric, would I be an antisemite for supporting a group that supports another group that endorses the opinion of a particular scholar (say, Noam Chomsky) who deliberately advocates a perspective that you label antisemitic (say, #4 maybe)?


Well Chomsky was accused of anti-semitism, not that I think he was, but there is a difference between Noam Chomsky's writings which are anti-Statist and anti-Nationalist and tend to be fairly equal in their opposition to all states and the rantings of groups like Hamas or the stuff you might read on Stormfront or White Nationalist group etc. I think you can see that too.


Dean

Rhetorical racism


Ah, so everyone who makes racist comments here could then write it off as mere "rhetorical racism", I suppose other people who have been banned were perhaps merely guilty of rhetorical racism.
This is the most hypocritical and profoundly stupid thing I have read on this thread.
Let us also not forget that most things begin in rhetoric, Nazi anti-semitism began with the "rhetoric" of a failed Austrian painter... look where that lead.
You also seem to be under the impression that "physical" anti-semitism does not exist? Well, you are very mistaken.

Check the Cover of the New Statesman on January 14, 2002. "Kosher Consipracy"- this was accused of being anti-Semitic.

27/1/2010 Strasbourg- Jewish cemetery vandalised by Neo-Nazis.

Skånska Dagbladet Jewish cemetery in Malmo, Sweden was vandalised in "revenge" for Gaza War.
http://www.icare.to/news.php?en/2010-01#ANTISEMITISM IN MALMO-REPORT FROM SWEDEN

26/1/2010- On an evening during the week-long Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Ber van Halem (22) crossed a street in Amsterdam’s affluent Zuid neigbourhood, only to hear a group of boys invoke a Dutch ethnic slur (“Kankerjood”) involving both a deadly disease and his Jewish heritage. Not once, but several times. Van Halem confronted the boys and continued on his way. Suddenly, he heard the sound of bicycles behind him. He turned around and an argument developed. Out of nowhere, he felt somebody hit him. He fell to the ground. “I was kicked in my stomach and on my shoulder while prone,” Van Halem recounted. Van Halem’s beating, which took place in October 2008, remains one of the most infamous manifestations of anti-Semitism in the Netherlands in recent years. The incident led to public outcry, when local police failed to find time to register Van Halem’s formal complaint days later. “We were very busy working a robbery,” a spokesperson for the Amsterdam- police force explained. The Van Halem case has since been closed. Not one perpetrator was caught. http://www.icare.to/news.php?en/2010-01#ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE RISE IN AMSTERDAM (Netherlands)

Ukraine, skinheads attacked Jewish workers and assaulted the director of a Jewish school. In Holland, demonstrators carrying swastikas and photos of Israel chanted "Sieg heil!" and "Jews into the sea!" In Salonika, the Holocaust Memorial was defaced with pro-Palestinian graffiti. In Slovakia, Jewish cemeteries were firebombed. In Berlin, Jews were assaulted, swastikas daubed on Jewish memorials, and a synagogue spray-painted with the words "six million is not enough." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/mort/zuckerman_new_anti_sem.php3

Etc, etc, etc...

[Agnapostate]

What do "we" know? We know nothing.

If you know nothing, then you do not know that you know nothing.

[ComradeMan]

If you know nothing, then you do not know that you know nothing.

Yeah, yeah... nice paradox, I said "we", not I... LOL!!! Now how about we address the points....
:thumbup1:

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, yeah... nice paradox, I said "we", not I... LOL!!! Now how about we address the points....
:thumbup1:

I can hardly compel you to address points. Looks like you'd better come up with a more suitable pronoun.

[ComradeMan]

I can hardly compel you to address points. Looks like you'd better come up with a more suitable pronoun.


Needling, picking at words, digressing into semantic arguments... want to talk about Anti-Semitism here?

[Dean]

Needling, picking at words, digressing into semantic arguments... want to talk about Anti-Semitism here?

Apparently, to discuss anti-semitism with you, we must agree with the formation of a racist settler state. And to address that point, is somehow "derailing the thread."

Face it. You're flame-baiting. Its all bait. You just want to push your pro-Israeli agenda with whatever meek liberal stances you can try to force through. It's just silly.

[ComradeMan]

Apparently, to discuss anti-semitism with you, we must agree with the formation of a racist settler state. And to address that point, is somehow "derailing the thread."

Face it. You're flame-baiting. Its all bait. You just want to push your pro-Israeli agenda with whatever meek liberal stances you can try to force through. It's just silly.

Apparently, to discuss anti-semitism with you is impossible since you drag everything into an Israeli debate. Anti-Semitism is not concentrated 100% on the issue of Israel, although obviously Israel gets pulled into the debate.

On your own website, you advocate peaceful Zionism. This has been mentioned before, yet when it's someone else's "peaceful Zionism", because that is now doubt how it's seen, suddenly it's not okay.... seems very hypocritical to me.

Quote- YOU

I stand firmly behind my friends who advocate pacifistic Zionism, or for that matter any solutons to the Israeli – Palestinian problem that do not undermine human rights.
http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/israel_palestine.htm

I challenge you to find one single post of mine anywhere that does not correspond to that.

Furthermore, you have made no attempt to address the points about anti-semitism in the wider world, nor the looked at the examples given.

As for flame-baiting, well, look at the OP- let's keep it civil. The idea was discuss to the points, which are not exclusively my positions, nor am I alone on this forum with any of these points either.

What meek liberal stances? Advocating "peaceful Zionism" might be seen by some as "meek liberalism", whatever that qualitative statement ought to mean in the first place. Define meek please.... is meek not similar to peaceful?

[9]

Glenn Beck

2. Equating Jewishness with Zionism and using the world Israeli Jews instead of the Israeli Government etc.
So we can't make sociological observations about the general attitudes and demographics of the Israeli Jewish population and thus examine the roots of support for Israeli government policies and the inequalities of Israeli society without being antisemitic? Well gee that's a bummer.


Well it may be a bummer, but you might wish to take note of the fact that all Jews are neither Israelis and/or Zionists. Most of what I read about "Israeli Jews" makes no attempt to differentiate along any kind of sociological line. It's a bit like someone saying that all British people are imperialists because the British (democratically elected majority) government is imperialistic. Would that stand up in court? No, it wouldn't! So why should the same apply to Jews who are not even Israeli citizens, and probably a large number of Israelis too- including well-known voices within the Jewish world?


What is antisemitic about this? Is it the use of the imprecise term "Jews" as opposed to "supporters of Israel", or even "pro-Zionist Jews"? If that is the case, such a characterization is certainly inaccurate because quite a few Jews don't use the Holocaust as justification for the policies of Israel. Some Jews, like professor Norman Finkelstein, not only do not do so but actively decry the use of the Holocaust in such a manner.
Do you consider the very assertion that some Jews, (specifically, a subset of those Jews that support the state of Israel) as well as some non-Jews use the Holocaust to justify Israeli policy an antisemitic assertion? Would Dr. Finkelstein then be an antisemitic Jew, perhaps a "self-hating Jew"? If you believe this to be the case, do you also consider the label of "self-hating Jew" to be an antisemitic one? If applicable, how do you reconcile this contradiction?


No I don't, but there is a difference between saying some Jews... and Jews- which you know full well. It's the difference between saying some Mexicans are drug-dealers and "Hispanics are criminals"... if you catch the drift. As for Finkelstein, well you picked a good one there. As for self-hating Jew, why should it be a contradiction? Self-hate exists in all shapes and forms but this is a forum for politics not psychological analysis.


Apikoros


Not at all. Most Jewish people would agree that a Jewish race does not exist, but there is a difference between talking about a race and a people. An American race, an Italian race and an Arab race do not exist either as such but it's not unreasonable to talk about an American people etc. What I am talking about the perpetuation of this anti-semitic idea that the Jewish people are somehow a creation of Zionism. No doubt certain Zionists do adhere to this but then nutters come in all shapes and sizes. Hitler spoke about the German people, because Hitler was an evil racist lunatic does not mean that the German people do not exist, does it?
People is not a euphemism for race, as strawmen go that was pretty pathetic.


It is certainly a racial categorization, seeing as Jews of the world do not have a common language, a common culture, or a common territory - which are the things that define all other peoples. So the only criteria you could possibly have for regarding them as a people, then, would be a racial criteria. And your use of “self-hating Jew” is very much analogous to the way white supremacists use the term ‘race traitor’ - that people of Jewish descent who oppose Zionism and its ideological foundation are just psychologically-deranged renegades going against their race. It is exactly the line of thinking.
It is funny, though, the way you belligerently insist upon tying all Jews of the world to the state of Israel - as if it is the representative hivemind of this homogeneous amorphous horde called “The Jewish People™” which is evidently a people exclusively comprised (with the exception of the psychologically deranged race traitors) of Zionist colonialists with a collective hardon for ethnic cleansing and imperialism - and then you actually have the nerve to complain about people who don’t differentiate between Zionists and Jews, as if this were not exactly the essence of your position.
But we have already had this discussion ad nauseum, and by now I am quite sure everyone here is aware that you’re a racist and a troll. So I’m not interested in rehashing the same points, or in engaging you any further in any capacity.

[ComradeMan]

So many strawmen, ay ay ay....

Apikoros
...a racial categorization, seeing as Jews of the world do not have a common language, a common culture, or a common territory - which are the things that define all other peoples. So the only criteria you could possibly have for regarding them as a people, then, would be a racial criteria.

It's not a racial categorisation anymore than saying "British People", not all British people the same language, genetics or culture but they also have uniting factors and commonalities, the same could be said of any "people"- note I never used the word race, you did.

Your definition would thus exclude us from talking about Chinese people, the Romany people and just about everyone else who was not part of a small-localised ethnic group- even then it's dubious. You should know that even in the Jewish religion, "the 12 tribes" were 12 tribal groups, not ONE tribe- whether that's historical or not is another question but it shows the idea of heterogeneity does not exclude you from talking about a people.

Your definition conveniently avoid the fact that all of these various peoples also call themselves Jews, despite divisions they have all maintained the Hebrew language as a cultural language and Hebrew influenced all of their dialects, from Yiddish to Ladino to Yinglish etc.

Your definition also fails to recognise the sense of unity amongst Jewish people as well. If I am a "good" Jew and Jew comes to my city and he is alone on Shabbat, I invite him to my house to break bread... why? If we don't speak the same vernacular it doesn't matter because we understand the Hebrew prayers...

In naming the race argument you are also on dangerous ground. Although no one serious does talk about race, umpteen scientific studies have shown that despite genetic flow all Jewish groups show degrees of relatedness that locate them back to the Middle East.

I am afraid your argument falls down on weak "strawman" definitions and bad science.


And your use of “self-hating Jew” is very much analogous to the way white supremacists use the term ‘race traitor’ - that people of Jewish descent who oppose Zionism and its ideological foundation are just psychologically-deranged renegades going against their race. It is exactly the line of thinking.

Excuse me, I did not call anyone a self-hating Jew, another strawman. I didn't say any of the other stuff. People are free to criticise whatever they want.

You seem to be able to do no better than take extreme Zionist arguments to build your strawmen and then attack them.

It is funny, though, the way you belligerently insist upon tying all Jews of the world to the state of Israel - as if it is the representative hivemind of this homogeneous amorphous horde called “The Jewish People™” which is evidently a people exclusively comprised (with the exception of the psychologically deranged race traitors) of Zionist colonialists with a collective hardon for ethnic cleansing and imperialism - and then you actually have the nerve to complain about people who don’t differentiate between Zionists and Jews, as if this were not exactly the essence of your position.

I do not tie all Jews to the State of Israel do I? In fact it was a certain advocate of peaceful Zionism that seemed to want to drag this down into an Israel debate. Nevertheless you can no more deny that the State of Israel and "World Jewry" are inter-related than you can say the sky is orange with purple spots.

When Jewish graves are vandalised in Sweden because of what happens in Gaza, when the Muslim Council of Great Britain boycotted Holocaust Remembrance because of Israel then I can hardly see how you can deny the relationship. You might also question why those groups wished to attack non-Israeli Jews on the basis of what happens in Israel?

The rest of your points are strawmen.

But we have already had this discussion ad nauseum, and by now I am quite sure everyone here is aware that you’re a racist and a troll. So I’m not interested in rehashing the same points, or in engaging you any further in any capacity.

If you are going to make accusations then back them up with facts and quotes. Ad nauseum indeed, and I seem to recall that before you could not actually refute anything and just turned to strawmen and name calling.

A bit like trashing the chessboard when you think you can't win anymore... poor little diddums....

I love the appeal to everyone here too.... pitiful.

I suggest you gather some facts and sources, which others try to do, if all you can do is attack people with ad hominems and strawmen, make up stuff they didn't even say in the first place and then make umpteen assumptions that disingenuously avoid having to confront the matters in hand then it doesn't make for much debate.

As for capacity, well you haven't demonstrated much so far.:laugh:

[Uppercut]

Let's just say showing hatred towards the Jews as a whole is anti-semitism. Bashing Israel and Zionism, and criticising individual Jews for their actions is not racist, as some Jews do meet the stereotype. Not saying all of them, but stereotypes do exist.

[Agnapostate]

To clarify, attacking individual Jews because of their alignment with the stereotypes associated with Jews as a whole is indeed "racist." Noting that it's not surprising that Bernie Madoff or Mort Zuckerman "lines his pockets and sticks his hooked nose into every branch of finance" is not far different from speaking of a black man using his welfare money for bling and hos.

[Uppercut]

To clarify, attacking individual Jews because of their alignment with the stereotypes associated with Jews as a whole is indeed "racist." Noting that it's not surprising that Bernie Madoff or Mort Zuckerman "lines his pockets and sticks his hooked nose into every branch of finance" is not far different from speaking of a black man using his welfare money for bling and hos.

Well, like it or not, some do choose to act that way, but I'm not saying it's because of their race. It has more to do with their upbringing and material surroundings than anything. For example, someone may rob a convenient store simply for the thrill and to have some extra money, while someone else may do the same out of desperation. It comes down to your consciousness and state of mind, which is ultimately shaped and molded by our enviroment.

[ComradeMan]

Well, like it or not, some do choose to act that way, but I'm not saying it's because of their race. It has more to do with their upbringing and material surroundings than anything. For example, someone may rob a convenient store simply for the thrill and to have some extra money, while someone else may do the same out of desperation. It comes down to your consciousness and state of mind, which is ultimately shaped and molded by our enviroment.

It does sound very anti-semitic the way you're putting this although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't meant it to be,

What irritates me about a lot of anti-semitism is that people seem to get away with it a lot more. This kind of comment creeps in slowly but surely and people get away with stereotyping and racism that in other situations would be condemned...

[eyedrop]

Well, like it or not, some do choose to act that way, but I'm not saying it's because of their race. It has more to do with their upbringing and material surroundings than anything. For example, someone may rob a convenient store simply for the thrill and to have some extra money, while someone else may do the same out of desperation. It comes down to your consciousness and state of mind, which is ultimately shaped and molded by our enviroment.

Why mention their race at all? Their race is completely inconsequential to the crappy things they do.

Only a racist focuses enough on race to insistently bring up someones race while critiquing someone.

[Uppercut]

Why mention their race at all? Their race is completely inconsequential to the crappy things they do.

Only a racist focuses enough on race to insistently bring up someones race while critiquing someone.

Did you even read my comment? I said their actions have NOTHING to do with their race! Besides, this thread is pertaining to race.

[eyedrop]

I was more accurately meaning to respond to this post, which hints criticising at in connection with Jews. But anyway the post wasn't meant to be specifically aimed at you, more of an addition.


Let's just say showing hatred towards the Jews as a whole is anti-semitism. Bashing Israel and Zionism, and criticising individual Jews for their actions is not racist, as some Jews do meet the stereotype. Not saying all of them, but stereotypes do exist.

[MMIKEYJ]

Any Jews who hate Iranians could be considered Anti-Semites as well.

Semite is a very broad term.

If you mean somebody who hates Jews just call them what they are: Anti-Jew.

[Dimentio]

Any Jews who hate Iranians could be considered Anti-Semites as well.

Semite is a very broad term.

If you mean somebody who hates Jews just call them what they are: Anti-Jew.

Iranians are not Semites etymylogically speaking.

Antisemitism doesn't mean "hate against Semites" but a belief that Jews somehow control the world.

[MMIKEYJ]

Iranians are not Semites etymylogically speaking.

Antisemitism doesn't mean "hate against Semites" but a belief that Jews somehow control the world.


I think youre mixing anti-semtism with the word zionism. "Ant-semite" means youre against semites.. and that can be almost any type of people from southwest asia.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Iranians are not Semites etymylogically speaking.

Antisemitism doesn't mean "hate against Semites" but a belief that Jews somehow control the world.

Iranians are Persian.

Arabs, however, are semitic. But antisemitism isn't a term applied to them.

Antisemitism is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture and religion.

[ComradeMan]

Iranians are Persian.

Arabs, however, are semitic. But antisemitism isn't a term applied to them.

Antisemitism is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture and religion.

I could see how someone might argue that anti-semitism may be applied to hatred of all semitic peoples and thus include Arabs, but then we also get into the question of who is an Arab, nevertheless I fail to see how anyone can argue for the term being applied to a non-semitic people such as the Iranians.

The Iranians I know are quite "hostile" to "Arabs" for historical and cultural reasons- rightly or wrongly- and certainly wouldn't consider themselves Semites! The fact that Iranian/Persian is an Indo-European language and not a Semitic one, and also that historically the Iranian peoples were "indo-Europeans" also add to the fact that saying anti-semitism applies to hatred of Iranians seems as ridiculous as saying it applies to hatred of, say, the Japanese!!!