Antisemitism: the hatred that refuses to go away

[hatzel]

If, as the old saw has it, antisemitism is a light sleeper, then it has just woken up with a start. In the space of a few days, a range of assorted eminences have dropped their guard and given voice to the Jew-hating demons in their heads.

So far only John Galliano has paid with his job, the "transgressive" designer dropped by fashion house Dior after delivering a drunken rant in a Paris bar to two women he took to be Jews: "I love Hitler," he began. "People like you ought to be dead, your mothers, your forefathers would all be fucking gassed."

That outburst stands out from the rest of the current crop of antisemitic remarks partly because it consists solely of abuse, even if of the most hateful kind. The others have in common that hallmark of anti-Jewish rhetoric: the conspiracy theory, the suggestion that Jews secretly plot and scheme with each other to shape the world to their own ends.

The latest subscriber to that centuries-old canard may turn out to be Julian Assange who, according to Private Eye, believes he is the victim of a Jewish conspiracy to damage WikiLeaks. The Eye's editor, Ian Hislop, says Assange told him that central to the plot was "the Guardian, which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'". That certainly came as news to Rusbridger.

Assange later issued a denial, accusing Hislop of misrepresentation: "In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word." However, Assange does have an association with a notorious antisemite and Holocaust denier who goes by the name of "Israel Shamir". Could it be that it was Shamir who schooled Assange in the finer points of Jewish conspiracy theory, with its traditional allegation of Jewish mastery of the press? At a parliamentary book launch hosted in 2005 by Lord Ahmed, Shamir declared: "Jews . . . own, control and edit a big share of mass media."

That influence stretches, it seems, all the way to the Olympic park in Stratford in east London – at least according to Mohammad Aliabadi, the head of Iran's National Olympic Committee who complained this week that the jagged-shaped logo for London 2012 clearly spells the word "Zion". That, the Iranian complained, was "a very revolting act". If most people have so far failed to see "Zion" surreptitiously contained inside the graphic, well that, Aliabadi would surely say, only goes to prove the dark genius of the Jews – able to conceal their cunning ways when it suits them. Or perhaps, as the US journalist Jeffrey Goldberg blogged, the Iranians are wrong and the logo secretly spells out: "Mark Spitz is Jewish, and Jason Lezak is Too, So Go Drown Yourselves in the Caspian Sea."

In this talk of Jewish plots, the Tehran regime has an unlikely ally in Fox News – or at least in its early-evening host, Glenn Beck. The ultra-right motormouth's most recent musings on the Jewish people compared the US's usually liberal Reform rabbis to "radicalised Islam", but of more relevance was his extended disquisition on the financier and philanthropist George Soros. Using an image with long-established service in the cause of antisemitism, Beck branded Soros "The Puppet Master" – using an actual marionette to show how Soros pulls the strings of those figures Americans might naively imagine to be in charge. To Beck, Soros is the "king" while Barack Obama is a mere "pawn". In another broadcast, the Fox pundit described the financier as "the head of the snake". Puppets, snakes, masters of the global chessboard – it's a palette of imagery any Nazi propagandist would instantly recognise.

All this might prompt the conclusion that antisemitism is making a sudden and unwelcome return. The trouble is, it never really went away. What's more, it is not confined to the celebrity wackos and eccentrics who have let the mask slip in recent days. It is more widespread than that – contrary to those who like to pretend antisemitism is a historical phenomenon, one that faded away with the Third Reich.

The Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Jewish attacks in Britain, notes that last year was the worst on record for antisemitic incidents – ranging from acts of violence to bricks through synagogue windows to hate mail to abuse screamed on the streets. The worst, that is, except for the year before. The evidence is there not just in the CST's compendious reports, but in the presence outside almost every synagogue or Jewish school of round-the-clock security. Those guards and CCTV cameras are there because bitter recent experience, and police advice, suggests they need to be there. That Jewish children need to be protected as they go to school in the Britain of 2011 will shock many who like to imagine the likes of Galliano are exhuming a hatred buried long ago.

In a way, the recent celebrity effusions – including Charlie Sheen's diatribes against his erstwhile TV producer Chuck Lorre, who the actor has insisted on referring to as "Chaim Levine" – are the easy cases. Everyone can condemn a Sheen or Galliano or, earlier, Mel Gibson – who, in 2006, was arrested bellowing, "Fucking Jews . . . the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" – for crude, overt bigotry. What exercises Jews rather more are the less clear-cut cases, those subtler expressions of anti-Jewish feeling, for which they suspect they get rather less understanding, especially from the liberal or progressive quarters where once they would have expected to find allies.

Much of this centres on Israel. Some new cliches have arisen that act as barriers to sympathy for Jews. One is the claim that Jews brand any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another is the claim that Jews "cry antisemitism" in order to silence opposition to Israel. These cliches – which are belied by the sheer volume of criticism of Israel by Israelis and Jews themselves, let alone by everyone else – have now become so durable that it is now difficult for Jews to get a hearing on antisemitism connected with the Middle East debate. And yet it is this that raises more unease than the alcohol-fuelled ravings of a washed-up Hollywood star or clothes designer.

What most Jews object to is not, in fact, criticism of Israel itself, but when that criticism comes wrapped in the language or imagery of Jew-hatred. In Trials of the Diaspora, his forensic study of English antisemitism, the critic and lawyer Anthony Julius provides example after example. He cites Tom Paulin's polemical poem Killed in Crossfire, published in the Observer at the height of the second intifada, or Caryl Churchill's 2009 play Seven Jewish Children, suggesting they are the latest in a long line of English literary works that tap into the "blood libel" – the medieval accusation that Jews hanker after the blood of gentile children, a defamation that led to massacres of Jews in England and far beyond.

Similarly, Jews are unnerved when they read learned essays by foreign policy experts alleging the domination of US affairs by the "Zionist lobby" – seeing in such arguments a veiled, upmarket form of the perennial conspiracy theory. They feel similarly alarmed by claims that the hidden hand behind all world events is really Israel – that it was Israel that pushed George W Bush to invade Iraq (when, in fact, Israeli policymakers were warning that Iran posed the greater threat), or that Israel is the reason why Britain has long backed despots in the Arab world, when Britain has plenty of self-interested reasons of its own for its policy in the region. Viewed like this, Assange's remarks don't look so distant from Oliver Stone's assertion last year that there is "Jewish domination of the media", to say nothing of Richard Dawkins's breezy statement that "the Jewish lobby . . . more or less monopolise American foreign policy".

What makes all this terrain so tricky is not only that every inch of it is vigorously contested but that many of those who resort to anti-Jewish tropes when tackling Israel do so apparently inadvertently, even at the very same time as they fiercely denounce antisemitism. Because they don't lapse into Galliano-esque abuse, they believe they must be free of all prejudice. To many, it comes as a shock to discover the provenance of the imagery they have just deployed.

The set-text on this point remains a 2002 cover of the New Statesman reporting on the activities of "the Zionist lobby" in Britain. It showed a brassy Star of David impaling a supine Union flag above the headline: "A kosher conspiracy?" It was like a crash course in antisemitic iconography, casting the Jews as rich, conspiratorial, disloyal and domineering all in a single image – with a link to Jewish religious practices ("kosher") thrown in for good measure. The magazine later apologised.

What accounts, then, for the stubborn resilience of what has been called "the longest hatred"? Why does it continue to appear even among those educated, liberal elites who pride themselves on their opposition to racism?

Julius reckons antisemitism endures because it has a "magnetic appeal" that can be hard to resist. By offering a conspiracy theory of power, rather than just the crude anti-immigrant stereotypes of other racisms, it provides, he says, "a compelling short cut to certainty. It allows the antisemite to claim they are in the know; it offers access to an occult world where everything makes sense, when the real world is, in fact, complex and difficult. 'The Jews are responsible' is a very appealing, very seductive explanation. It requires great self-discipline to resist its blandishments."

We may want to believe it went away, but it never did. Not even in the late 1940s, immediately after the revelations of the Holocaust confirmed the murderous place where antisemitic discourse could lead. There were still English literary critics around in those years to refer to the Jews as "Shylocks", still crime novels with the conniving Jew as the arch-villain. We may want to see the likes of Galliano as relics from another era or as mere eccentrics, but they are expressing a set of attitudes that remain deep in the soil and which have never been fully shaken off. They can appear in the most respected institutions, voiced by the most respectable people. Even when they seem to be dozing, they are never quite dead.



Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/antisemitism-hatred-wont-go-away)

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting point. I was having lunch with some hot shot company president and he mention another businessman--the president said: "well, he's from the 'tribe' so we have to be carful of him."

I must say the guy would NEVER have mentioned any other ethnic group in the same way with no protest. No one would tolerate a slur against Blacks. But "the tribe" slurs are I guess, OK.

[Mr.Awesome]

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.

Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires: Here (http://www.wake-up-america.net/list_of_jews_in_business.htm)

In Israel, the Jewish population is currently brutally oppressing those whose land they stole.

Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.


Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.

[Le Libérer]

Bud
Interesting point. I was having lunch with some hot shot company president and he mention another businessman--the president said: "well, he's from the 'tribe' so we have to be carful of him."

I must say the guy would NEVER have mentioned any other ethnic group in the same way with no protest. No one would tolerate a slur against Blacks. But "the tribe" slurs are I guess, OK.

Really? Because my Latino ex husband and I being a Jew, often referred to the socialites of our city as The Tribe. Its much like those at your country club, those who inherit money vs those who earned their fortunes. Politics is very tribal as is social standing in general. The status quo has the money to elect from their tribe.

So using the term "Tribe" can cross all sorts of things besides ethnicity.

[#FF0000]

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.

Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires: Here (http://www.wake-up-america.net/list_of_jews_in_business.htm)

In Israel, the Jewish population is currently brutally oppressing those whose land they stole.

Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.


Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Mr.Awesome]

You're a fucking idiot.

And why is that?

I oppose anti-semitism. If I saw a Jew being harrased for his race I would defend him etc.

My point is there are people much more oppressed than the Jews (as well as people who the Jews themselves oppress).

[Nolan]

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.

Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires: Here (http://www.wake-up-america.net/list_of_jews_in_business.htm)

Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.


Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.

You can't prove a fucking word of that.

[freepalestine]

mr.awesome:Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.
Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires:
In Israel, the Jewish population is currently brutally oppressing those whose land they stole.
Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.
And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.
Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.


i'd rather you wouldnt bring Palestinians into your rant.your comments are as out of order in aleftist forum as the zionist ones are.less of theracist comments.

[Mr.Awesome]

You can't prove a fucking word of that.

I'm pretty sure I can prove most of that. Part of it is statistic (I can find you the source), the bit about Palestine is fact, perhaps you could say I am generalising or even stereotyping when I say about sticking together, and if so I apologise.

But then answer me this?

Why is such a huge percentage of the bourgeois jewish?

[#FF0000]

And why is that?

I oppose anti-semitism. If I saw a Jew being harrased for his race I would defend him etc.

My point is there are people much more oppressed than the Jews (as well as people who the Jews themselves oppress).

Did you look at the site you posted?

[#FF0000]

But then answer me this?

Why is such a huge percentage of the bourgeois jewish?

Why does it matter? What are you getting at?

[Nolan]

And why is that?

I oppose anti-semitism. If I saw a Jew being harrased for his race I would defend him etc.

My point is there are people much more oppressed than the Jews (as well as people who the Jews themselves oppress).

You claimed antisemitism is not as bad as zionism. They are both despicable. You claimed that Jews have a massively disproportionate part of the wealth. Then you claimed "they" favor each other. This is antisemitism.

[Mr.Awesome]

Did you look at the site you posted?

The site is irrelevant. The list is what I was focusing on.

PS - You seem to take me as some sort of racist anti-semite asshole. I want to clarify that my remarks were not in any way meant to be anti-semitic and I'm sorry if anyone thinks they were.

[Thug Lessons]

The article is stupid. The criticisms of the Zionist lobby may be wrong, (a la Chomsky's criticisms), but they are more than an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Israeli advocacy groups like the ADL are very real and very powerful. Also, the article totally ignores the role that these groups, along with other Zionists, in creating the confusion between Israel and Jews more generally by conflating any criticisms of Israel with hatred of Jews. They call anti-Zionism "the new anti-semitism", and this has done more than any critic of Israel, anti-semitic or not, to blind Jews to valid criticisms of the Israeli state.

[Le Libérer]

You're a fucking idiot.

Watch the flaming.

[Thug Lessons]

Did you look at the site you posted?
Wake up America !!!

[#FF0000]

The site is irrelevant. The list is what I was focusing on.

PS - You seem to take me as some sort of racist anti-semite asshole. I want to clarify that my remarks were not in any way meant to be anti-semitic and I'm sorry if anyone thinks they were.

"I'm not an anti-semite, guys. I'm just saying, they all stick together and a lot of them are rich for some reason. I mean, why is that, guys? Just saying. Not an anti-semite. Just saying".

[Bud Struggle]

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.

Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires: Here (http://www.wake-up-america.net/list_of_jews_in_business.htm)

In Israel, the Jewish population is currently brutally oppressing those whose land they stole.

Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.


Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.

You posted that on the wrong forum, Cormade:

Here's where you should be:

Storm-----.

[Devrim]

Much of this centres on Israel. Some new cliches have arisen that act as barriers to sympathy for Jews. One is the claim that Jews brand any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another is the claim that Jews "cry antisemitism" in order to silence opposition to Israel. These cliches – which are belied by the sheer volume of criticism of Israel by Israelis and Jews themselves, let alone by everyone else – have now become so durable that it is now difficult for Jews to get a hearing on antisemitism connected with the Middle East debate.

The fact that Jews protest against Israel doesn't in any way belie the fact that the Israeli state and its supporters use the anti-semitism card in order to try to silence opposition to Israel. They do.

Devrim

[Nolan]

Yeah, please go find that thread on StormFront with the "source."

[Mr.Awesome]

You claimed antisemitism is not as bad as zionism. They are both despicable. You claimed that Jews have a massively disproportionate part of the wealth. Then you claimed "they" favor each other. This is antisemitism.

Well okay, anti-Semitism and Zionism are both as bad as each other. I did claim that the Jews hold a massively disproportionate part of the wealth. Thjis is not racist. It is fact. Jews make up 2% of the US population and 48% of the billionaires. And when I spoke of 'them' who favor each other, my point was more directed at the Jewish bourgeois rather than Jews as a whole.


Why does it matter? What are you getting at?

This was my point that they must support each other to be so strong while remaining an ethnic minority.

[Rafiq]

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

That's like saying "Better a Racist, white supremacist Nazi than a Black Panther"



Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.

You're point? I bet the other 50% are white. Does that mean there is an international Caucasian conspiracy?



Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires: Here (http://www.wake-up-america.net/list_of_jews_in_business.htm)

In Israel, the Jewish population is currently brutally oppressing those whose land they stole.

In Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Muslim population is brutally oppressing other religious minority's. Does that give us the right to hate Arabs?



Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.

No, but they do scapegoat them. It is like a domino effect of hate "Hitler hated Them for a reason, I should hate them too" And hitler said "The Egyptians hated them for a reason, maybe I should too"



And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.

I live in Michigan. Arabs do the same. So do a lot of black communitys and white ones as well. Btw I know a lot of Jews who hate each other.



Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.

Yes you do, and your post was irrelevant. Fuck you.

And go ahead and give me an infraction for flaming, but you're a big fucking asshole if you are going to do nothing about htis asshole's blatant antisemitism.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud

Really? Because my Latino ex husband and I being a Jew, often referred to the socialites of our city as The Tribe. Its much like those at your country club, those who inherit money vs those who earned their fortunes. Politics is very tribal as is social standing in general. The status quo has the money to elect from their tribe.

So using the term "Tribe" can cross all sorts of things besides ethnicity.


Well anything could mean anything. But he was talking about "Jews." We knew the people involved.

Interesting thing is the guy knew he crossed the line with that remark. I didn't say anything (the best way to show disaproval is to not return phone calls.)

But the point is that people THINK these things. It's the same with Blacks, I'm sure.

[Le Libérer]

Mr. Awesome has been banned for anti-Semitism.

[Dean]

What exercises Jews rather more are the less clear-cut cases, those subtler expressions of anti-Jewish feeling, for which they suspect they get rather less understanding, especially from the liberal or progressive quarters where once they would have expected to find allies.

Much of this centres on Israel. Some new cliches have arisen that act as barriers to sympathy for Jews. One is the claim that Jews brand any and all criticism of Israel as antisemitic; another is the claim that Jews "cry antisemitism" in order to silence opposition to Israel. These cliches – which are belied by the sheer volume of criticism of Israel by Israelis and Jews themselves, let alone by everyone else – have now become so durable that it is now difficult for Jews to get a hearing on antisemitism connected with the Middle East debate. And yet it is this that raises more unease than the alcohol-fuelled ravings of a washed-up Hollywood star or clothes designer.

Cliche or not, this is a fact, pure and simple. Not "all" Jews do this, nor is it a strictly Jewish issue - it is merely an issue of ethnic nationalism which has a common voice in religious communities around the world.

A recent letter-to-the-editor in the local paper decried the state of Christians in Bethlehem. The Fatah and Israeli system of oppression is plainly the cause of the Israeli military regime. Two rabbis - both of whom are otherwise fairly liberal, I learned - wrote in to complain, and to defend Israel.


Similarly, Jews are unnerved when they read learned essays by foreign policy experts alleging the domination of US affairs by the "Zionist lobby" – seeing in such arguments a veiled, upmarket form of the perennial conspiracy theory. They feel similarly alarmed by claims that the hidden hand behind all world events is really Israel – that it was Israel that pushed George W Bush to invade Iraq (when, in fact, Israeli policymakers were warning that Iran posed the greater threat), or that Israel is the reason why Britain has long backed despots in the Arab world, when Britain has plenty of self-interested reasons of its own for its policy in the region. Viewed like this, Assange's remarks don't look so distant from Oliver Stone's assertion last year that there is "Jewish domination of the media", to say nothing of Richard Dawkins's breezy statement that "the Jewish lobby . . . more or less monopolise American foreign policy".

They're idiots for calling the lobby Jewish - I don't think it represents Jewish interests. Rather, it represents the forced alienation of Jews from Europe by Europeans. But its an Israeli lobby, and yes, it has massive power.


What makes all this terrain so tricky is not only that every inch of it is vigorously contested but that many of those who resort to anti-Jewish tropes when tackling Israel do so apparently inadvertently, even at the very same time as they fiercely denounce antisemitism. Because they don't lapse into Galliano-esque abuse, they believe they must be free of all prejudice. To many, it comes as a shock to discover the provenance of the imagery they have just deployed.

The set-text on this point remains a 2002 cover of the New Statesman reporting on the activities of "the Zionist lobby" in Britain. It showed a brassy Star of David impaling a supine Union flag above the headline: "A kosher conspiracy?" It was like a crash course in antisemitic iconography, casting the Jews as rich, conspiratorial, disloyal and domineering all in a single image – with a link to Jewish religious practices ("kosher") thrown in for good measure. The magazine later apologised.

This is like a diatribe about how you ought to tiptoe around representations of Jewish culture when criticizing Israel and its allied structures. What a banal collection of liberal idealism.

The author ought to be worried about, and commenting on, the number of antisemitic attacks that have occurred recently. That is what is really concerning. Why is the mainstream press allowed to publish polemics against Shariah and Islamism, and all this journalist can see with the underground criticism of a Jewish state as "racist" because it uses the national symbols of the regime? Why does it think that antisemitism is congealed in crude attempts to criticize a racist regime (a regime which Jews rightly criticize, perhaps at a much higher rate per capita)? Why doesn't it see antisemitism as being generated by the controlling force in the very conflict it refers to? All the antisemitism of Hamas (and for that matter the ant-Arabism, Islamophobia in Israel and its settlements) should be a warning that ethnically-charged expropriations are war are wrong and lead to terrible things.

If anything, this purist view on ethnically/religiously charged rhetoric - which seems to uniquely apply to Jews - is a far more dangerous thing than any of the drunken fools it cites. Perhaps this very sensitivity is what gives rise to the disproportionate attention that antisemitic rants garner - its like its ok to say something against Muslims, since we already know that the US doesn't like them.

What a fucked morality.

[Dean]

You can't prove a fucking word of that.

I love how that fucking list he linked to has "parents were holocaust survivors" presumably as proof of Jewish lineage. Besides the obvious fallacy, accepting that people survived the holocaust ought to make you ashamed to be an antisemite.

[ComradeMan]

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Jews make up 48% of the the billionaires in America.

Heres a short list of just a couple of Jewish billionaires: Here (http://www.wake-up-america.net/list_of_jews_in_business.htm)

In Israel, the Jewish population is currently brutally oppressing those whose land they stole.

Overall, people don't just randomly hate Jews.

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.


Get me right, I don't support anti-Semitism. All I'm saying is that the Jews are hardly the oppressed people of the world.


Well done- you proved Krimskrams point totally. He's talking about anti-semitism and you instantly jumped to "zionism".

Schmuck.

[gorillafuck]

Similarly, Jews are unnerved when they read learned essays by foreign policy experts alleging the domination of US affairs by the "Zionist lobby" – seeing in such arguments a veiled, upmarket form of the perennial conspiracy theory. They feel similarly alarmed by claims that the hidden hand behind all world events is really IsraelClaims like this are absurd. Israel is basically an extension of the United States, it acts as a colonialist military base. The claim that it's behind Americas wrongdoings is nuts.

[Tim Finnegan]

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Jews do stick to themselves and support each other. Jewish employers always favour jews etc.
My Irish Catholics great-grandad was a foreman for a construction firm, and had a local reputation for favouring fellow Irish Catholics. Y'know why? Because all the other employers were anti-Irish bigots.

You can moan about "reverse racism" when the Anglos don't rule from Seattle to Melbourne. Until then, outcasts are always going to stick together, and are quite right to do so.

[ComradeMan]

My Irish Catholics great-grandad was a foreman for a construction firm, and had a local reputation for favouring fellow Irish Catholics. Y'know why? Because all the other employers were anti-Irish bigots.

You can moan about "reverse racism" when the Anglos don't rule from Seattle to Melbourne. Until then, outcasts are always going to stick together, and are quite right to do so.

Yeah and we all know how those Italians keep it in the family..... :rolleyes::lol:
LOL!!!

[Nolan]

Israel is just a little country in the middle east with an ultranationalist government and generous imperialist backing*. It controls no one except the Palestinians it ethnically cleanses.

*why? The US (mostly) and Israel mutually benefit. The zionist state gets to exist and carry out its cleansing of Palestine with the blessing of the most powerful state on earth. In exchange the US gets an ally it needs to facilitate its dominance over the region. In the US there is a strong tendency to sympathize with Israel because

1. religion,
2. anti-arab sentiment,
3. its an ally. Supporting allies is in our best interests.
4. anything else is antisemitism.

Certain lobbying groups make this whole thing run more smoothly.

[gorillafuck]

The fact that Jews protest against Israel doesn't in any way belie the fact that the Israeli state and its supporters use the anti-semitism card in order to try to silence opposition to Israel. They do.

DevrimThat's true, groups like the extreme racists in the Anti-Defamation League use that tactic constantly. That's why I use the phrase Israeli colonialism as opposed to zionism, since I mean, the modern zionist movement is just an Israeli colonialist movement, it's much simpler to say.

[ComradeMan]

FFS- Krimskrams was talking about anti-semitism- and voila, it's about Israel....:rolleyes:

[9]

Uh, no, Krimskrams was talking about Israel too.

[Metacomet]

You're a fucking idiot.


He's gonna tell you about this awesome book he read that changed his world, something about the Elders of Zion.

[Le Libérer]

He's gonna tell you about this awesome book he read that changed his world, something about the Elders of Zion.

No he's not. He's banned.

[Thug Lessons]

FFS- Krimskrams was talking about anti-semitism- and voila, it's about Israel....:rolleyes:

Did you miss the part where this began as a discussion of a direct quote from the article?

[hatzel]

Yeah, I'm not actually talking about anything, I haven't been in here until now :) However, I will now talk about something:


The fact that Jews protest against Israel doesn't in any way belie the fact that the Israeli state and its supporters use the anti-semitism card in order to try to silence opposition to Israel. They do.


I feel that the article was referring to a complete over-extension of that point, though. As in, the situation whereby actual expressions of antisemitism directed towards the Israeli state are left to pass almost unchallenged, because the accusation of antisemitism may be responded to with the knee-jerk reaction, 'hah, you're just pretending it's antisemitism to try to make us look bad!' This would be why he explicitly says 'it is now difficult for Jews to get a hearing on antisemitism connected with the Middle East debate.' I feel the point he raises there is that there are instances of antisemitism which somehow manage to slip through the net, because the accusation is automatically construed as some delegitimising tactic, and therefore disregarded. Irrespective of whether the accusation comes from an Israeli official, an Israeli citizen, and pro-Israeli diaspora Jew, an anti-Israeli diaspora Jew, there are some who instantly ignore it by thinking it's just the tribe (to use the term Bud introduced) sticking together. This runs the risk of creating a situation whereby certain people may be convinced that there is no possibility of any expression of anti-Zionism actually being antisemitic. It can be difficult to assess which accusations of antisemitism one should or shouldn't take seriously (though of course every such action should be taken seriously enough that the accused analyses the reasoning behind it and questions its legitimacy), but there is an issue whereby certain individuals may not take any accusation seriously, and instead instantly joke of its anti-anti-Zionist nature, without actually taking the time to ask oneself why the accusation was levied, let alone whether there's any truth in it. That, for sure, is a grave issue...this is how I personally understand that particular point in the article :)

[Milk Sheikh]

Mr. Awesome has been banned for anti-Semitism.

I strongly object to this.:mad: There was no reason to ban him; he was just trying to have an argument. Are we just supposed to nod our heads and pat one another on the back?

[#FF0000]

I strongly object to this.:mad: There was no reason to ban him; he was just trying to have an argument. Are we just supposed to nod our heads and pat one another on the back?

Er, no sort of racism is welcome around here. If you want to have that kind of conversation, go elsewhere.

[Che a chara]

I strongly object to this.:mad: There was no reason to ban him; he was just trying to have an argument. Are we just supposed to nod our heads and pat one another on the back?

Eh ? he was being very unfairly generalistic and using prejudiced and unsubstantiated racial stereotyping of Jews.

[Tim Finnegan]

I strongly object to this.:mad: There was no reason to ban him; he was just trying to have an argument. Are we just supposed to nod our heads and pat one another on the back?
So you agree that it's better to be a neo-Nazi than a pro-Zionist? ...What are you doing on a forum entitled "RevLeft", exactly? :blink:

[Milk Sheikh]

Eh ? he was being very unfairly generalistic and using prejudiced and unsubstantiated racial stereotyping of Jews.

I didn't see any post like that. He only talked about the list of Jewish billionaires, or something to that effect. Are we supposed to reject statistics as well?

Anyway, abusing Muslims seems fine here as long as one clothes it in 'anti-theist' rhetoric. But one word about the Jews and you're out. Hypocrisy!

[Milk Sheikh]

So you agree that it's better to be a neo-Nazi than a pro-Zionist? ...What are you doing on a forum entitled "RevLeft", exactly? :blink:

What nonsense are you talking about? I am contesting the fact that he said or did anything remotely neo-Nazi. Besides, on a discussion form it's impossible to find out true intent, and hence it's better to give the person concerned the benefit of the doubt. Also exaggeration is sometimes used to highlight a point - that way you can understand this whole 'pro-Zionist vs Neo-Nazi' thing.

[#FF0000]

I didn't see any post like that. He only talked about the list of Jewish billionaires, or something to that effect. Are we supposed to reject statistics as well?

He, uh, posted to a pretty blatantly antisemitic website.


Anyway, abusing Muslims seems fine here as long as one clothes it in 'anti-theist' rhetoric. But one word about the Jews and you're out. Hypocrisy!Uhhh no it isn't and even so, the banned member wasn't criticizing Judaism for it's religious concepts. He was talking about Jews. Not Judaism.


What nonsense are you talking about? I am contesting the fact that he said or did anything remotely neo-Nazi. Besides, on a discussion form it's impossible to find out true intent, and hence it's better to give the person concerned the benefit of the doubt. Also exaggeration is sometimes used to highlight a point - that way you can understand this whole 'pro-Zionist vs Neo-Nazi' thing.

Nah. That site he linked to was quite enough tbh.

[Che a chara]

I didn't see any post like that. He only talked about the list of Jewish billionaires, or something to that effect. Are we supposed to reject statistics as well?

By spreading the usual Nazi like bullshit and suspicion and propaganda about Jews (as individuals and not as a religion) that has them been persecuted worldwide for an eternity ? and via an anti-semite website !??


Anyway, abusing Muslims seems fine here as long as one clothes it in 'anti-theist' rhetoric. But one word about the Jews and you're out. Hypocrisy!

I think you'll find that many are very supportive of Muslims and abhorrent of Islamophobia on here, but your direction and comments uses the Islamic faith as some sort of supremacist ideology.

[Milk Sheikh]

By spreading the usual Nazi like bullshit and suspicion and propaganda about Jews (as individuals and not as a religion) that has them been persecuted worldwide for an eternity ? and via an anti-semite website !??

I don't know anything about the website. Are the stats true or false? Are we supposed to ignore them? I am not saying one should make conclusions leading to anti-Semitism, btw. Only wondering whether facts and figures must be ignored for fear that one may be called anti-Semitic.

[Tim Finnegan]

What nonsense are you talking about? I am contesting the fact that he said or did anything remotely neo-Nazi.

Better an anti-semite than a zionist imo :blushing:

Granted, Nazism builds on anti-semitism somewhat, but the point stands. Even this qualified condoning of bigotry has no place in leftist discussion.


Only wondering whether facts and figures must be ignored for fear that one may be called anti-Semitic.
What facts and figures? He pulled a number out of his ass, and then linked to a pointless list of prominent Jewish businesspeople- many deceased, some over half a century so- who he groundlessly declared to be billionaries. Insubstantiality defined!

[#FF0000]

I don't know anything about the website. Are the stats true or false? Are we supposed to ignore them? I am not saying one should make conclusions leading to anti-Semitism, btw. Only wondering whether facts and figures must be ignored for fear that one may be called anti-Semitic.

Uh, no one is ignoring anything. It's just totally irrelevant what ethnicity some billionaires are. If someone's making that an issue, you have to wonder why they're making it an issue.

[Milk Sheikh]

Granted, Nazism builds on anti-semitism somewhat, but the point stands. Even this qualified condoning of bigotry has no place in leftist discussion.

I already explained this: the technique of exaggeration is sometimes used to stress a certain point in your argument. If I say 'better Stalin than Hitler', it doesn't imply a direct approval of Stalin; rather, it's more an attack on Hitler than support for Stalin.



What facts and figures? He pulled a number out of his ass, and then linked to a pointless list of Jewish billionaires. Insubstantiality defined!

So the guy doesn't do his research properly, and he's banned?:rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

I already explained this: the technique of exaggeration is sometimes used to stress a certain point in your argument. If I say 'better Stalin than Hitler', it doesn't imply a direct approval of Stalin; rather, it's more an attack on Hitler than support for Stalin.
Not if you go on to list a series of justifications for Stalin's programs of ethnic cleansing, it isn't.


So the guy doesn't do his research properly, and he's banned?:rolleyes:
There's a difference between "not doing your research" and "pulling blatantly racist claims out of your ass".

[Che a chara]

I don't know anything about the website. Are the stats true or false? Are we supposed to ignore them? I am not saying one should make conclusions leading to anti-Semitism, btw. Only wondering whether facts and figures must be ignored for fear that one may be called anti-Semitic.

Compile a list of Christian billionaires and Chritian businessmen/women and compare. It's very obvious that the page singles out Jews. And who's to say that they are the facts ? It's clear as day he was using the old age Nazi anti-semitic prejudice to discriminate and stereotype.

Also has anyone noticed that there is a good few of those names that when you click on them the edit page of wiki comes up.....? for example, right click on 'Harry Triguboff' and hit on 'copy link address' and you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Triguboff&action=edit

Now this tells me that the cretin author of that website was just after editing and falsifying info on wikipedia before he entered the link onto his stinking website.

Milk Sheikh, Does it not even arouse you with suspicion that the site only directs it's disinformation on Jewish people ?

[Milk Sheikh]

Uh, no one is ignoring anything. It's just totally irrelevant what ethnicity some billionaires are. If someone's making that an issue, you have to wonder why they're making it an issue.

I am not a mind reader, and I don't pretend to know people's inner motives. I'd rather give members the benefit of the doubt than ban them outright.

[Tim Finnegan]

Compile a list of Christian billionaires...
Perhaps worth noting, most of the individuals on the list were not billionaires, and many are dead. Mr.Awesome was taking an already meaningless list and twisting it even further to support his claims.


I am not a mind reader, and I don't pretend to know people's inner motives. I'd rather give members the benefit of the doubt than ban them outright.
Who cares about his "intentions"? He made blatantly anti-Semitic comments, going far beyond questionable conjecture into outright lies. Nolan summed it up hours ago:

You claimed antisemitism is not as bad as zionism. They are both despicable. You claimed that Jews have a massively disproportionate part of the wealth. Then you claimed "they" favor each other. This is antisemitism.

[Milk Sheikh]

Compile a list of Christian billionaires and Chritian businessmen/women and compare. It's very obvious that the page singles out Jews.

I think the term he used was disproportionate wealth - hence people would only talk about a small population controlling vast resources rather than a large population having a large number of billionaires. The former would be unique; the latter not so much. That's the psychology behind it, I guess.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think the term he used was disproportionate wealth - hence people would only talk about a small population controlling vast resources rather than a large population having a large number of billionaires. The former would be unique; the latter not so much. That's the psychology behind it, I guess.
No, that's the rationalisation. The distribution he claimed was entirely untrue, and could only have sprung from either the holding of anti-semitic beliefs, or the suffering of a condition known as "having a peanut for a brain". Both are, I think, reasonable grounds for a ban.

[RGacky3]

anti-semitism, although it is still strong and kicking is at least vilified in public, and considered generally to be a shameful position, so poeple like glenn beck (who are just all around bigots) have to apologise for their anti-semitism, yet his Islamophobia can go on, its almost as if its accepted, thats a bigger problem IMO.



I didn't see any post like that. He only talked about the list of Jewish billionaires, or something to that effect. Are we supposed to reject statistics as well?

Its kind of like you cherry picking certain facts to try and paint hindus in a bad light, its clear what his motivation was, I can make a list of Catholic murderers and then claim that Catholocism causes people to murder, and I would be called out for bigotry, because its clear what my motivation is, its not fact finding, its to fit my narrative that Catholics are bad (in this hypothetical.)

Thats exactly what Mr. Awesome was doing with jews, what you do with Hindus, and what some others here do with Muslims.


Anyway, abusing Muslims seems fine here as long as one clothes it in 'anti-theist' rhetoric. But one word about the Jews and you're out. Hypocrisy!

Thats a different aspect, atheists attack the idea of God in general from a philisophical/scientific point of view, it has nothing to do with Bigotry perse.

You on the other hand are just a bigot.


Are we supposed to ignore them?

I'm pretty sure that 48% of billionaires is bulshit.

[9]

anti-semitism, although it is still strong and kicking

I don't really think it is, tho, at least not in 'the West'. I've been given the impression its worse in the former SSRs (from what I understand, until about a decade ago, Jews - and, I assume, national minorities in general - were still required to list their "nationality", e.g. 'Jewish', on their passports etc.), but I think overall its on the steep, steep decline and well on its way to being dead entirely.
And actually, its really pretty incredible just how radically its declined, and what's even more incredible is the total absence of any real recognition of the fact.

However, I think there are a lot of people who have a vested political interest in making it appear as though there are bloodthirsty Jew-haters hiding in the shadows and behind every corner, waiting for the perfect moment to reemerge and carry out The Second Holocaust. This sort of fearmongering is a mainstay of modern Zionist ideology and, in particular, of Israel's orientation toward (so-called) "The Diaspora". If you feel constantly like you're in danger and you have to be ready at any moment to pack up the kids and haul off to Israel, you're obviously going to feel like you have a direct stake in the state of Israel and you're going to be much more willing to support it and defend all of its actions, and much less likely to have a critical thought about it.

I also think there is an issue with what is actually 'anti-Semitism'. As I said, I think classic European anti-Semitism is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I think there is something very-superficially similar in much of the Middle East in relation to Israel, and I think sometimes it draws on some of the language and imagery of classic anti-Semitism, but I think its fundamentally different in nature. And I think the attempts to make it seem like it - and extending to anti-Zionism in general - is just a continuation, in a 'new' form, of classic European anti-Semitism are similarly politically-motivated and that the people who engage in this sort of thing have an agenda to push and really aren't interested in reality.


EDIT: also, in case it isn't clear, this wasn't all intended to be in response to RGacky... I was just sort of using his comment as a jumping-off point to address some things in the rest of the thread.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know anything about the website. Are the stats true or false? Are we supposed to ignore them? I am not saying one should make conclusions leading to anti-Semitism, btw. Only wondering whether facts and figures must be ignored for fear that one may be called anti-Semitic.

I suppose someone could list a bunch of Moslem oil billionaires and billionaire leaders of countries and their relatives and then draw some sort of conclusions about the Moslem people of the world.

How accurate would you think that would be?

[manic expression]

Foolish argument from a foolish ideology. Legitimate criticism of Israel is readily branded as "anti-Semitic" by Israel's defenders, even when there is absolutely no justification for such. Further, the apologists of Zionist fascism try to tie together divergent critics of Israel, putting them in one large pot in order to smear them all with "anti-Semitism". These arguments are symptoms of Zionism's obvious desperation, as it is increasingly isolated and scorned around the world by all who value human dignity. It is only natural that Zionists, who collaborated with European fascism before WWII, would use tortured logic to support the torture of innocent people.

[Devrim]

I don't really think it is, tho, at least not in 'the West'. I've been given the impression its worse in the former SSRs (from what I understand, until about a decade ago, Jews - and, I assume, national minorities in general - were still required to list their "nationality", e.g. 'Jewish', on their passports etc.), but I think overall its on the steep, steep decline and well on its way to being dead entirely.
And actually, its really pretty incredible just how radically its declined, and what's even more incredible is the total absence of any real recognition of the fact.

It is pretty much alive and kicking here. Wiki gives some figures:


According to opinion polls conducted in 2007-2009, the Turkish society has a high level of xenophobia. 64% of Turks do not want to see Jews as their neighbors, 76% has a negative attutude towards Jews, and only 7% is positive.[27]

As this is before the Mavi Marmara incident, I would imagine that in polls taken today the numbers would be higher.

Jews in Turkey are, as everyone is, compelled to have their religion on their identity cards*. They are 'protected minorities' like 'treaty Christians'.

Of course after a tax rate, which also applied to 'treaty Christians' of five times that paid by Muslims, back in the forties, a series of anti-semitic attacks including a Turkish version of the 'Kristal Nicht' in 1955, we don't actually have many Jews left here. Nearly a quarter of the Jewish population left, mostly to Israel after the Mavi Marmara events.

Personally I have only ever met one person here I knew to be Jewish, though most of them live in Istanbul, where I have occasionally heard people speaking Ladino.


I also think there is an issue with what is actually 'anti-Semitism'. As I said, I think classic European anti-Semitism is, for all intents and purposes, dead. I think there is something very-superficially similar in much of the Middle East in relation to Israel, and I think sometimes it draws on some of the language and imagery of classic anti-Semitism, but I think its fundamentally different in nature. And I think the attempts to make it seem like it - and extending to anti-Zionism in general - is just a continuation, in a 'new' form, of classic European anti-Semitism are similarly politically-motivated and that the people who engage in this sort of thing have an agenda to push and really aren't interested in reality.

Yes, it does seem to have different roots, and is very much related to Israel, and also Turkish nationalism and xenophobia in general.

Devrim

*My documents don't have a specified religion and say 'dinsiz', literally without religion. It surprises people.

[Milk Sheikh]

I suppose someone could list a bunch of Moslem oil billionaires and billionaire leaders of countries and their relatives and then draw some sort of conclusions about the Moslem people of the world.

How accurate would you think that would be?

I already explained this in #55.

[Devrim]

I feel that the article was referring to a complete over-extension of that point, though. As in, the situation whereby actual expressions of antisemitism directed towards the Israeli state are left to pass almost unchallenged, because the accusation of antisemitism may be responded to with the knee-jerk reaction, 'hah, you're just pretending it's antisemitism to try to make us look bad!' This would be why he explicitly says 'it is now difficult for Jews to get a hearing on antisemitism connected with the Middle East debate.' I feel the point he raises there is that there are instances of antisemitism which somehow manage to slip through the net, because the accusation is automatically construed as some delegitimising tactic, and therefore disregarded. Irrespective of whether the accusation comes from an Israeli official, an Israeli citizen, and pro-Israeli diaspora Jew, an anti-Israeli diaspora Jew, there are some who instantly ignore it by thinking it's just the tribe (to use the term Bud introduced) sticking together. This runs the risk of creating a situation whereby certain people may be convinced that there is no possibility of any expression of anti-Zionism actually being antisemitic. It can be difficult to assess which accusations of antisemitism one should or shouldn't take seriously (though of course every such action should be taken seriously enough that the accused analyses the reasoning behind it and questions its legitimacy), but there is an issue whereby certain individuals may not take any accusation seriously, and instead instantly joke of its anti-anti-Zionist nature, without actually taking the time to ask oneself why the accusation was levied, let alone whether there's any truth in it. That, for sure, is a grave issue...this is how I personally understand that particular point in the article :)

I think the fact that anti-semitism is widespread in the Arab and 'Muslim' world, which it obviously is, see my recent post on anti-semitism in Turkey, doesn't mean that the Israeli state and its supporters do not use the accusation of anti-semitism as a way of sheilding Israel from criticism. Also as '9' said, I think that anti-semitism in those areas is of a different nature from classical European anti-semitism.

Devrim

[Tomhet]

Anti semites seem to blame ALL the worlds problems on the Jews.. I am glad OP is banned..

[Bud Struggle]

I already explained this in #55.

All I can say is that you complain about people not treating Moslems with the proper respect, but then you go off on Hindus and Jews. In the end it you and guys like you that are making Moslems look like crap.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I already explained this in #55.

Well, Milk Sheikh, suppose the OP had instead written


Better a Muslim hater than an Islamic bomber imo :blushing:

Muslims make up 99% of all terrorists.

Heres a short list of just a couple of Muslims terror attacks: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

In Pakistan, the Muslim population is oppressing those who aren't Muslim.

Overall, people don't just randomly hate Muslims.

And about 'the tribe', its not untrue that the Muslims do stick to themselves and support each other. Muslim employers always favour muslims etc.


Get me right, I don't support Islamophobia. All I'm saying is that the Muslims are hardly the oppressed people of the world.

Would that imagined rant be sort of like the stuff he wrote about Jews? Yeah - I kind of think so.

[Dean]

FFS- Krimskrams was talking about anti-semitism- and voila, it's about Israel....:rolleyes:

Krimskrams posted an article that introduced the issue of criticism of Israel. If it hadn't have been in the OP, I wouldn't have said anything about it, and I suspect most others here would have done the same.

[Dean]

Compile a list of Christian billionaires and Chritian businessmen/women and compare. It's very obvious that the page singles out Jews. And who's to say that they are the facts ? It's clear as day he was using the old age Nazi anti-semitic prejudice to discriminate and stereotype.

Also has anyone noticed that there is a good few of those names that when you click on them the edit page of wiki comes up.....? for example, right click on 'Harry Triguboff' and hit on 'copy link address' and you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Triguboff&action=edit

Now this tells me that the cretin author of that website was just after editing and falsifying info on wikipedia before he entered the link onto his stinking website.

Actually, those are the links that come up when you go to a Wikipedia page that isn't yet established. He probably just put the names in Wikipedia and copied whatever came up.

[Dean]

I feel that the article was referring to a complete over-extension of that point, though. As in, the situation whereby actual expressions of antisemitism directed towards the Israeli state are left to pass almost unchallenged, because the accusation of antisemitism may be responded to with the knee-jerk reaction, 'hah, you're just pretending it's antisemitism to try to make us look bad!' This would be why he explicitly says 'it is now difficult for Jews to get a hearing on antisemitism connected with the Middle East debate.' I feel the point he raises there is that there are instances of antisemitism which somehow manage to slip through the net, because the accusation is automatically construed as some delegitimising tactic, and therefore disregarded.

Perhaps, but not anywhere I am familiar with. The whole culture in the US is far past this point - criticism of Israel is roundly considered antisemitic. That should catch any real cases which may occur within that criticism.


Irrespective of whether the accusation comes from an Israeli official, an Israeli citizen, and pro-Israeli diaspora Jew, an anti-Israeli diaspora Jew, there are some who instantly ignore it by thinking it's just the tribe (to use the term Bud introduced) sticking together. This runs the risk of creating a situation whereby certain people may be convinced that there is no possibility of any expression of anti-Zionism actually being antisemitic.

Right, and there are some who instantly ignore criticism that comes from Blacks, Muslims, Hispanics, and other minorities/oppressed people and call it "whining." As far as I can tell, the latter form of prejudice is far more common - and nobody seems very concerned about it at all.


It can be difficult to assess which accusations of antisemitism one should or shouldn't take seriously (though of course every such action should be taken seriously enough that the accused analyses the reasoning behind it and questions its legitimacy), but there is an issue whereby certain individuals may not take any accusation seriously, and instead instantly joke of its anti-anti-Zionist nature, without actually taking the time to ask oneself why the accusation was levied, let alone whether there's any truth in it. That, for sure, is a grave issue...this is how I personally understand that particular point in the article :)

There are serious issues confronting Jewish people and their communities. There are violent acts and movements which threaten them. By focusing on the Israel debate, as the article does, without engaging in any serious analysis surrounding that debate or the antisemitism cited, it fails to bea anything but a generalized polemic.

[Milk Sheikh]

All I can say is that you complain about people not treating Moslems with the proper respect, but then you go off on Hindus and Jews. In the end it you and guys like you that are making Moslems look like crap.

Good Lord, did I say anything bad about the Jews? Did I call them names? abuse them? Nope, I did not. I only said if stats say a small population controls most of the resources, we can't close our eyes for fear that we may sound anti-Semitic. Does this sound like I am going off on Jews?:rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Good Lord, did I say anything bad about the Jews? Did I call them names? abuse them? Nope, I did not. I only said if stats say a small population controls most of the resources, we can't close our eyes for fear that we may sound anti-Semitic. Does this sound like I am going off on Jews?:rolleyes:

No one is closing their eyes though. We're saying that it is an irrelevant thing and that it is a strange thing to just bring up for no reason. If you mention race or something like that out of nowhere, it is going to raise eyebrows.

[Milk Sheikh]

No one is closing their eyes though. We're saying that it is an irrelevant thing and that it is a strange thing to just bring up for no reason. If you mention race or something like that out of nowhere, it is going to raise eyebrows.

Not race but class analysis. For practical purposes, you may name a people as X or Y, and then find out how much they control. But because you mention X or Y, people may accuse you of racism. But are you? Get what I am saying?

[RGacky3]

Good Lord, did I say anything bad about the Jews? Did I call them names? abuse them? Nope, I did not. I only said if stats say a small population controls most of the resources, we can't close our eyes for fear that we may sound anti-Semitic. Does this sound like I am going off on Jews?:rolleyes:

You did'nt go off on Jews, but you do on Hindus on a regular basis, which is juts as bad and should be you banned.

BTW, As others have said, we can bring up stats about Muslims too.

THe fact it the motivation behind Mr. Awesomes posts was clearly anti-semitism.

As its pretty clear that your an anti-hindu bigot.

[Milk Sheikh]

You did'nt go off on Jews, but you do on Hindus on a regular basis, which is juts as bad and should be you banned.

BTW, As others have said, we can bring up stats about Muslims too.

THe fact it the motivation behind Mr. Awesomes posts was clearly anti-semitism.

As its pretty clear that your an anti-hindu bigot.

If you ban people for having opinions, you'll have to ban everyone. By learning from one another, we may get to change hearts. Think about that, would you?

EDIT: I am a Hindu, so how in the world am I an anti-Hindu bigot?:confused:

[RGacky3]

If you ban people for having opinions, you'll have to ban everyone. By learning from one another, we may get to change hearts. Think about that, would you?


We ban people for having BIGOTED opinions, and with that rule we don't have to ban that many.


EDIT: I am a Hindu, so how in the world am I an anti-Hindu bigot?:confused:

Your not Muslim?

[Milk Sheikh]

We ban people for having BIGOTED opinions, and with that rule we don't have to ban that many.

Rules me out, then.


Your not Muslim?

Where did I ever make that claim? You made an assumption just because I said a few things in favor of Muslims.:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

You've made many many many anti-hindu posts, so you must be a self-hating hindu.

[Viet Minh]

re: antisemitism
Yes I have personally noticed a rise in antisemitism, for instance idiots using the word 'jew' like an insult, which really pisses me off. :mad: And I'm not even Jewish, though my half sister is. I think a lot of this bollocks comes from South park, who try to be ironic and forget the majority of their audience are neocon idiots who won't get it, or impresisonable douchebag teens who immitate anything they see on tv desperately trying to seem kewl.

re: zionism
I'll be honest here, I have only heard claims of antisemitism in regards to Israel one time, when someone compared the start of the Arab-Israeli war to the holocaust, implying the Arabs to be like Nazis. I can't even remember where I read that, but clearly it is bullshit political propaganda. Both sides are guilty of it though, for instance the use of the term 'apartheid' and numerous comparisons to the Nazis in regard to Israel. There are debateable similarities of course, but overall the situations are just too different to compare them.
Military aggression and illegal settlement aside, Israel do not help their case by their use of Religious symbology in the flag and even the name of Israel. Maybe that is part of the reason that Israel is widely viewed as Islamophobic, whears Hamas and Fatah for example are purely regarded as political movements. Don't quote me but I think there are as many Muslims in israel as there are Jews in Palestinian territory, and theoretically they all have the same civic rights, so the division is not purely religious by any means. PS there are equal numbers of Christians on both sides of the border too. I don't live there though so i can hardly comment on their lives.
I am probably coming off as a militant zionist unapologist, I liek to think I am neutral in regards to the middle east, I'm probably just answering what seems to be a majority of support for Palestine. Which is my point really, if any, why support either 'side'? Especially in the partisan blinkered way some here accuse the USA of taking for Israel?
Anyway if I'm offending anyone I'm sorry, I'm onyl trying to speak in the interests of peace and balance.

سلام‎
שָׁלוֹם

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes I have personally noticed a rise in antisemitism, for instance idiots using the word 'jew' like an insult, which really pisses me off. :mad:
I'm not sure if I'd describe it as resurgence of anti-Semitism per se, but, rather, of public displays of anti-Semitism. People forget how horrifically anti-Semitic the Western world was prior to the Holocaust, and it's naive to think that, just because it forced anti-Semites to swallow their prejudices, those prejudices disappeared altogether. I don't know why it seems to be becoming more publicly acceptable to engage in certain expressions of previously frowned-upon bigotry (and anti-Semitism is hardly the only example), but I think you're right in that it represents a third-hand butchering of originally ironic, anti-racist portrayals of such prejudice. The fall from the viciously ironic racist sentiments expressed in anti-racist punk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Oy7-sMnWc) to the lazy and ambiguous "hipster racism" of contemporary middle class youth (and that includes nominal liberals, as well as the more witless neocons) is by now well-recorded.

Just wait until they find an excuse to politicise it- which is to say, dress it in political garb- something which the right has mostly been robbed because of their defence of Israel. It wasn't until the Pope's visit last year that I realised how many people in Britain still really do hate Catholics. :(


Both sides are guilty of it though, for instance the use of the term 'apartheid' and numerous comparisons to the Nazis in regard to Israel.I'm not sure if the use of the term "apartheid" is illegitimate. A direct comparison to South African apartheid would be inaccurate, sure, but the term has since taken on a more general usage in reference to any system of institutionalised ethnic segregation and domination, and that usage is pretty hard to dispute.

[progressive_lefty]

It's insulting to hear someone suggest that there is something different about anti-semitism as oppossed to say hatred of Black people. That somehow hatred of Black people is bad, but NOT as bad as hatred of Jewish people. What the hell is with that? So what is it better to be Black and be discrimated against and vilified, as oppossed to being Jewish and be discriminated against and vilified - which is somehow 'diffirent' and 'worser'. That's so pathetic.

Anyone that denies anti-semitism is obviously a fool, but anyone that tries to rank different forms of discrimination or hatred is also a fool. All hatred is bad.

[Viet Minh]

I'm not sure if I'd describe it as resurgence of anti-Semitism per se, but, rather, of public displays of anti-Semitism. People forget how horrifically anti-Semitic the Western world was prior to the Holocaust, and it's naive to think that, just because it forced anti-Semites to swallow their prejudices, those prejudices disappeared altogether. I don't know why it seems to be becoming more publicly acceptable to engage in certain expressions of previously frowned-upon bigotry (and anti-Semitism is hardly the only example), but I think you're right in that it represents a third-hand butchering of originally ironic, anti-racist portrayals of such prejudice. The fall from the viciously ironic racist sentiments expressed in anti-racist punk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Oy7-sMnWc) to the lazy and ambiguous "hipster racism" of contemporary middle class youth (and that includes nominal liberals, as well as the more witless neocons) is by now well-recorded.

I was originally going to say, I don't think its entirely unrelated to the rise in Islamophobia. And really, if the media can make offensive remarks and generalisations, and blatant lies about a religion and its followers why can't joe public?


Just wait until they find an excuse to politicise it- which is to say, dress it in political garb- something which the right has mostly been robbed because of their defence of Israel. It wasn't until the Pope's visit last year that I realised how many people in Britain still really do hate the Irish. :(

These things have long been polticised, in the UK at least. The BNP and daily mail cream themselves everytime they find something remotely negative to say about Muslims, and if not usually just invent or misrepresent something. What happened during the Popes visit? I never payed much attention at the time but there was a very ill-conceived bad taste 'Pope-a-like' competition on a certain TV show which receieved a huge backlash from the Catholic community.


I'm not sure if the use of the term "apartheid" is illegitimate. A direct comparison to South African apartheid would be inaccurate, sure, but the term has since taken on a more general usage in reference to any system of institutionalised ethnic segregation and domination, and that usage is pretty hard to dispute.

In that sense it is valid, but I would disagree with your use of the term 'ethnic', I know its a pedantic point but it is an important one I beleive, that there are different ethnicities involved, eg Arab Israelis and Semitic Palestinians. By using a term like 'Apartheid', unless applied neutrally to the situation as whole, all you do is fuel one side of the argument. I can sympathise with your reasons for doing that, but do you agree that if an Israeli soldier/ politician heck even an ordinary Israeli citizen were to read your comments, all they do is jump to the defensive and become more extreme. I'm assuming from your comments you're a supporter of palestine, in which case you understand how inflammatory it is to suggest any criticism of Israel is purely antisemitism and nothign more, do you accept that the reverse is equally reactionary, suggesting that any cirticism of militant Palestinian groups is purely Islamophobia? What I'm getting at is from a leftist perspective we should not be condoning either side of the conflict, be it ethnic or religiously based. The only exception is if you truly believe one side to be Fascist AND the other to be leftist, which I personally don't.

Granted though you could solve the Middle Easts problems by nuking Israel (or for that matter Palestine) but its a little like swatting a fly with a buick. Actually thats a very bad analogy but you get what I mean.. ?

[Tim Finnegan]

I was originally going to say, I don't think its entirely unrelated to the rise in Islamophobia. And really, if the media can make offensive remarks and generalisations, and blatant lies about a religion and its followers why can't joe public?
Quite possibly. Its really somewhat hard for me to say; vocal Islamophobia in the US is largely a product of 9/11 and the War on Terror, but in the UK it's something that's been building for decades, so its harder to note any drastic change in attitudes to religious minorities.



These things have long been polticised, in the UK at least. The BNP and daily mail cream themselves everytime they find something remotely negative to say about Muslims, and if not usually just invent or misrepresent something.
Well, I meant in regards to Jews. For the last six decades, the traditionally anti-Semitic hard right has had to keep its trap zipped because of its enthusiasm for Zionism, but if there was ever a politically sound reason for them to cast aspersions on the Jewish people, a good many of them would be tripping over themselves to do so.


What happened during the Popes visit?Nothing in particular, but a significant portion of the protest- which was, in itself, entirely reasonable- began straying from "we oppose the policies of the Church" into "stupid superstitious Mick bastards!". This was to be expected from the protestant reactionaries who were (foolishly) given a platform during the whole affair, but even some nominally liberal voices began to give off a not-entirely-faint whiff of prejudice.


I never payed much attention at the time but there was a very ill-conceived bad taste 'Pope-a-like' competition on a certain TV show which receieved a huge backlash from the Catholic community. ...Of course, it must be said that a lot of Catholics don't help their case by being humourless cretins! :laugh:



In that sense it is valid, but I would disagree with your use of the term 'ethnic', I know its a pedantic point but it is an important one I beleive, that there are different ethnicities involved, eg Arab Israelis and Semitic Palestinians. By using a term like 'Apartheid', unless applied neutrally to the situation as whole, all you do is fuel one side of the argument. I can sympathise with your reasons for doing that, but do you agree that if an Israeli soldier/ politician heck even an ordinary Israeli citizen were to read your comments, all they do is jump to the defensive and become more extreme.I see your point there, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to moderate ones criticism so as not to cause offence to the easily offended. Now, certainly, hyperbolic slander helps nobody, but if it is felt that the term is warranted, which I believe it is- qualified and elaborated upon, perhaps, but warranted none the less- then I believe that its use is proper. The trick is, I would say, to maintain a sensible, measured usage which draws on substantial critiques of Israeli policy, and not allow it to become mere rhetorical ammunition.


I'm assuming from your comments you're a supporter of palestine, in which case you understand how inflammatory it is to suggest any criticism of Israel is purely antisemitism and nothign more, do you accept that the reverse is equally reactionary, suggesting that any cirticism of militant Palestinian groups is purely Islamophobia? What I'm getting at is from a leftist perspective we should not be condoning either side of the conflict, be it ethnic or religiously based. The only exception is if you truly believe one side to be Fascist AND the other to be leftist, which I personally don't.I'm not sure I understand your point; I never suggested that anti-Palestinian sentiment is rooted in Islamophobia, nor am I aware of any particular tendency on the left to make such claims. (In fact, I'd say it's been pretty well established on the left that the use of Islamophobic arguments in to the Palestinian situation tends to be a rationalisation for an already venerable anti-Arab prejudice among many Westerners. After all, until relatively recently, anti-Zionist movements in the Middle East were largely secular "national liberation movements" which drew support from both Muslim and Christian Arabs, and even some self-identified "Arab Jews" (Mizrahi Jews who resented the colonial ambitions and Eurocentric attitudes of the primarily Ashkenazi Zionists). it's only in the last couple of decades that Islamism has become a major motivating force among the Palestinians, and the contempt in which they are currently held by pro-Zionists long pre-dates that.)


Granted though you could solve the Middle Easts problems by nuking Israel (or for that matter Palestine) but its a little like swatting a fly with a buick. Actually thats a very bad analogy but you get what I mean.. ?I, uh, I don't really know who's suggesting that we nuke Israel. I'm certainly not. :confused:

[Aetos]

I think that we should acknowledge the difference between criticism of the State of Israel and antisemitism.

[Viet Minh]

Quite possibly. Its really somewhat hard for me to say; vocal Islamophobia in the US is largely a product of 9/11 and the War on Terror, but in the UK it's something that's been building for decades, so its harder to note any drastic change in attitudes to religious minorities.

There's always been the NF 'paki-bashing' shit :( I meant more a shift towards religious prejudice as well as racial, and a rise in Islamophobia in the mainstream media.


Well, I meant in regards to Jews. For the last six decades, the traditionally anti-Semitic hard right has had to keep its trap zipped because of its enthusiasm for Zionism, but if there was ever a politically sound reason for them to cast aspersions on the Jewish people, a good many of them would be tripping over themselves to do so.

To be honest my udnrstanding is different, the NF for example even approached Muammar al-Gaddafi and Louis Farakhan, I suppose they were trying to emulate their hero Adolph Hitler trying to suck up to Muslims :rolleyes: In 2006 a BNP member stated support for Israel invading Lebanon, but conversely Nick Griffin denounced the EDL as 'Zionist conspiracy' of some sort. In theory yes I suppose the far right wants a Jewish State, as an excuse to deport Jewish people, but I don't know if they have the mental capacity to understand that concept, let alone decide on a single party line. As reactionaries they just tell whoeevr whatever they want to hear, based on whatever scaremoingering is happening at the time.


Nothing in particular, but a significant portion of the protest- which was, in itself, entirely reasonable- began straying from "we oppose the policies of the Church" into "stupid superstitious Mick bastards!". This was to be expected from the protestant reactionaries who were (foolishly) given a platform during the whole affair, but even some nominally liberal voices began to give off a not-entirely-faint whiff of prejudice.

Was this in Glasgow? Yeah there is a lot of that crap unfortunately. I was at a certain football match and all through the bus journey the possil rangers supporters club were calling hearts fans 'dirty papish fenian bastards' (forgive the phraseology) then one of their pals got on wearing the biggest crucifix I have ever seen an they were all 'awright mick pal [yes that was srsly his name!] hows things old chum?' etc. Its ignorance and mob mentality brought on by deprivation and hardship, not that thats an excuse.


...Of course, it must be said that a lot of Catholics don't help their case by being humourless cretins! :laugh:

Its understandable in a State that has anti-Catholic law written in at the highest levels of state to be sensitive, but in the words of bill hicks to some offended christians 'forgive me' :D


I see your point there, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to moderate ones criticism so as not to cause offence to the easily offended. Now, certainly, hyperbolic slander helps nobody, but if it is felt that the term is warranted, which I believe it is- qualified and elaborated upon, perhaps, but warranted none the less- then I believe that its use is proper. The trick is, I would say, to maintain a sensible, measured usage which draws on substantial critiques of Israeli policy, and not allow it to become mere rhetorical ammunition.

I need to backpedal a bit here, I'm all for open and honest debate (critiscism included of course!) I just mean we generally should avoid taking too extremist a stance either way, because all that does is create an equal and opposite reaction (ary). ;)


I'm not sure I understand your point; I never suggested that anti-Palestinian sentiment is rooted in Islamophobia, nor am I aware of any particular tendency on the left to make such claims. (In fact, I'd say it's been pretty well established on the left that the use of Islamophobic arguments in to the Palestinian situation tends to be a rationalisation for an already venerable anti-Arab prejudice among many Westerners. After all, until relatively recently, anti-Zionist movements in the Middle East were largely secular "national liberation movements" which drew support from both Muslim and Christian Arabs, and even some self-identified "Arab Jews" (Mizrahi Jews who resented the colonial ambitions and Eurocentric attitudes of the primarily Ashkenazi Zionists). it's only in the last couple of decades that Islamism has become a major motivating force among the Palestinians, and the contempt in which they are currently held by pro-Zionists long pre-dates that.)

No sorry I didn't make my point very well at all, I simply meant to put yourself 'in their shoes', by presenting the equivalent scenario to the anti-Zionist=antisemitic position. Its somewhat of a false equivalency because as you say the Palestinian movement is not exclusively Muslim, nor does it label itself such. I'm maybe a bit caught up in the mythos around martyrism, which is only a small element of the Palestinian Liberation movement as a whole, and arguably a very extreme reaction to very extreme conditions.


I, uh, I don't really know who's suggesting that we nuke Israel. I'm certainly not. :confused:

My point was a reductio ad absurdum, I was trying to say that you can go one of two ways; support one side of a conflict to its bitter conclusion, or support peace, negotiation and truce. But in retrospect really thats a very simplistic way of looking at any situation, i would no doubt feel very differently if i lived in the southern levant! :(

Anyway, peace

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, before I start, I should say that I completely forgot that you're in the UK, so if my previous post read weirdly, that's why... :blushing:


There's always been the NF 'paki-bashing' shit :( I meant more a shift towards religious prejudice as well as racial, and a rise in Islamophobia in the mainstream media.
That's a fair point. There's definitely been a shift in the expression of anti-Muslim sentiments from racial and cultural bigotry to religious bigotry, and, as you suggest, I think a lot of that has been lead by the new-found willingness of a usually (or at least nominally) non-racist mainstream media to entertain some rather backwards opinions on Islam.


To be honest my udnrstanding is different, the NF for example even approached Muammar al-Gaddafi and Louis Farakhan, I suppose they were trying to emulate their hero Adolph Hitler trying to suck up to Muslims :rolleyes: In 2006 a BNP member stated support for Israel invading Lebanon, but conversely Nick Griffin denounced the EDL as 'Zionist conspiracy' of some sort. In theory yes I suppose the far right wants a Jewish State, as an excuse to deport Jewish people, but I don't know if they have the mental capacity to understand that concept, let alone decide on a single party line. As reactionaries they just tell whoeevr whatever they want to hear, based on whatever scaremoingering is happening at the time.Well, I was primarily referring to non-fascist right- UKIP, hardline Tories, the right-wing of the Republican Party in the US, and so forth. They're generally got just enough wit to keep their tongues in check in regards to Jews, given their position in regards to Israel. Griffin et al. are, of course, a bit more brain-addled.


Was this in Glasgow? Yeah there is a lot of that crap unfortunately. I was at a certain football match and all through the bus journey the possil rangers supporters club were calling hearts fans 'dirty papish fenian bastards' (forgive the phraseology) then one of their pals got on wearing the biggest crucifix I have ever seen an they were all 'awright mick pal [yes that was srsly his name!] hows things old chum?' etc. Its ignorance and mob mentality brought on by deprivation and hardship, not that thats an excuse. Well, it was certainly more common in Glasgow- which, I will admit, isn't exactly the best barometer for these things, given its history- but even some of the stuff coming from big voices in the media had strains of it. Perhaps I'm just a bit over-sensitive, given my background, but I think that your earlier suggestion of a resurgence of public religious prejudice may have some relevance.


I need to backpedal a bit here, I'm all for open and honest debate (critiscism included of course!) I just mean we generally should avoid taking too extremist a stance either way, because all that does is create an equal and opposite reaction (ary). ;)Fair point. There's certainly a difference between strongly-worded criticism and vulgar demonisation.


No sorry I didn't make my point very well at all, I simply meant to put yourself 'in their shoes', by presenting the equivalent scenario to the anti-Zionist=antisemitic position. Its somewhat of a false equivalency because as you say the Palestinian movement is not exclusively Muslim, nor does it label itself such. I'm maybe a bit caught up in the mythos around martyrism, which is only a small element of the Palestinian Liberation movement as a whole, and arguably a very extreme reaction to very extreme conditions.Fair enough.


My point was a reductio ad absurdum, I was trying to say that you can go one of two ways; support one side of a conflict to its bitter conclusion, or support peace, negotiation and truce. But in retrospect really thats a very simplistic way of looking at any situation, i would no doubt feel very differently if i lived in the southern levant! :(I suppose I see what you mean, but, yeah, there's a lot of complexity to it that gets in the way of suggesting an ultimate dichotomy between peace and armageddon.

[Dr Mindbender]

To rubbish that anti semetic guy's claim about the majority of bourgeoisie being jewish, if you look at the forbes 100 list of richest people the majority of them actually tend to be white christians, white secularists, muslim arab oil magnates, or other ethnic groups, not jews.

I know wealth and class arent the same, but lets face it they go hand in hand.

[RGacky3]

I know wealth and class arent the same, but lets face it they go hand in hand.

At the top end it pretty much is. No One in the forbes 100 or 500, or even the top 1000 makes their money from an sort of labor or service.

[Che a chara]

Lenin on anti-semitism:

"Anti-semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews. When the accursed Tsarist monarchy was living its last days it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews. The Tsarist police, in alliance with the landlords and capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. In other countries, too, we often see the capitalists fomenting hatred against the Jews in order to blind the workers, to divert their attention from the real enemy of the working people, capital. Hatred towards the Jews persists only in those countries where slavery to the landowners and capitalists has created abysmal ignorance among the workers and peasants. Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews. This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate. This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

"It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. Among the Jews there are kulaks, exploiters and capitalists, just as there among the Russians and among people of all nations. The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. Those who do not work are kept in power by the power and strength of capital.

"Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob and disunite the workers.

"Shame on accursed Tsarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews. Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

"Long live the fraternal trust and fighting alliance of the workers of all nations in the struggle to overthrow capital."

[Che a chara]

What is the general view or perception of believing that the Christian 'End Times' as being anti-semitic ? i had a wondering with a mate of mine over a drink earlier today .....

[ComradeMan]

People here seem to be confusing Anti-Judaism with Anti-Semitism- which is understandable. Anti-Judaism is when you have a problem or issue with the religion of Judaism, in any of its forms. Anti-Semitism is when you pick on the Jewish people as a race- like the Nazis did for example. Of course this is a tricky one because of the way in which religion and ethnicity are combined in Judaism and the overlaps in terms of history- however it is worth bearing in mind.

[Viet Minh]

People here seem to be confusing Anti-Judaism with Anti-Semitism- which is understandable. Anti-Judaism is when you have a problem or issue with the religion of Judaism, in any of its forms. Anti-Semitism is when you pick on the Jewish people as a race- like the Nazis did for example. Of course this is a tricky one because of the way in which religion and ethnicity are combined in Judaism and the overlaps in terms of history- however it is worth bearing in mind.

Ironically a lot of Palestinian muslims could be considered semitic peoples, although they probably don't advertise the fact.. The term Arab is a misnomer I don't believe that many Arabs settled in Palestine, my guess is there are more Turkish and possibly Greek genetics there.
Its further complicated when we talk about anti-Zionism, because you can be anti Zionist while still believing Israel has a right to exist in some form.

[Dean]

People here seem to be confusing Anti-Judaism with Anti-Semitism- which is understandable. Anti-Judaism is when you have a problem or issue with the religion of Judaism, in any of its forms. Anti-Semitism is when you pick on the Jewish people as a race- like the Nazis did for example. Of course this is a tricky one because of the way in which religion and ethnicity are combined in Judaism and the overlaps in terms of history- however it is worth bearing in mind.

I'm not comfortable with any such terms. Judaism has perfectly acceptable tendencies which appear alongside deplorable ones, just like any other religion. And the fact that these religions are aggregations of cultural identity and tradition make them far too human to roundly reject. Take a look at this for example:



His lord said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord."

He also who had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours."


But his lord answered him, "You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."


Not only does this embody the structure of interest (and thus proves its historical tradition) but it also explains the so-called "Matthew effect:" that those who have money, will get more, and those who have little, will have even that taken.


I think it is clear that it is a criticism of the master, though the Wikipedia entry implies that theological tradition stands in stark contrast to this idea.

[RGacky3]

There are a few interpritations to that scripture, however the most obvious is that he's using a (at that time, and now) real world example in order to explain evangelizing, i don't think it was a social commentary at all.

[Tim Finnegan]

Ironically a lot of Palestinian muslims could be considered semitic peoples, although they probably don't advertise the fact.
"Semitic", properly speaking, simply refers to an ethno-linguistic group which is part of the Semitic family, and so, yes, includes both Arabs and Jews. It's not properly a racial term- in fact, a substantial part of the Ethiopian and Eritrea populations- but was adopted as one by 19th century "race scientists", who generally held that ethno-linguistic identity was indicative of "racial" background, despite this being such utter nonsense that even Mussolini felt obliged to call bullshit.


The term Arab is a misnomer I don't believe that many Arabs settled in Palestine, my guess is there are more Turkish and possibly Greek genetics there.Well, there's really no such thing as "Turkish" or "Greek" genetics, because those are ethno-linguistic identities, not biological categories. Tellingly, neither the Greeks nor the Turks, despite having a population largely descended from that of the neolithic period (like most of Eurasia), have always been Greek or Turkish.
(Besides, even if "Turkish" and "Greek" were genetic categories, there'd be no more reason to believe that they were the ancestors of the modern population of the Levant, given that neither of them settled in large numbers. The Turks, in particular, never even formed substantial communities in the Levant (as the Greeks did in some major cities), instead existing as a warrior-aristocracy, like the Normans in Medieval England.)

[Devrim]

Well, there's really no such thing as "Turkish" or "Greek" genetics, because those are ethno-linguistic identities, not biological categories. Tellingly, neither the Greeks nor the Turks, despite having a population largely descended from that of the neolithic period (like most of Eurasia), have always been Greek or Turkish.
(Besides, even if "Turkish" and "Greek" were genetic categories, there'd be no more reason to believe that they were the ancestors of the modern population of the Levant, given that neither of them settled in large numbers. The Turks, in particular, never even formed substantial communities in the Levant (as the Greeks did in some major cities), instead existing as a warrior-aristocracy, like the Normans in Medieval England.)

Interestingly a genetic study commissioned by NG magazine found that the Turks were mostly genetically 'Greek' anyway, which is what you could expect when a Turkish military minority conquered and ruled over a mostly Greek population.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The term Arab is a misnomer I don't believe that many Arabs settled in Palestine,

What does the word 'Arab' mean though? There is no such thing as a 'pure' ethnic group. All of them are mixed. If these terms mean anything they are not ethnic, but cultural. An Arab today is an Arabic speaker. That is what it means.

Do you think that the Egyptians aren't Arab either because 'ethnically' they are almost certainly less so than the people in Palestine?

Devrim

[RGacky3]

Most ethnicities are nothing more than language groups, and when people speak the same language they tend to share more culturally, so thats it.

It does'nt matter if its biological or not, ethnic hatred is JUST AS BAD as racial hatred.

[ComradeMan]

I'm not comfortable with any such terms. Judaism has perfectly acceptable tendencies which appear alongside deplorable ones, just like any other religion. .

With respect, it's not really about what you or I deem acceptable or not. A lot of historical Anti-Semitisim, at least in the West, was prima facie Anti-Judaism- i.e. religious and based on the accuasations of deicide etc- the "racial" part was secondary. In the 19th century, leading up to and culminating in the 20th century Nazi persecution of Jews this was situation was inverted and Anti-Semitism on a racial basis came to the fore with Anti-Judaism playing a secondary role. Like I said before, both are inevitably connected because of the ethno-religious nature of Judaism.