Anti-Semitism

[EwokUtopia]

So my dilemma is this, does anti-semitism exist as a seperate form of hatred, or is it one in the same as racism in general. Why does hatred of Jewish people recieve its own title that is in many cases even more politically loaded than the word Racism?

Lets look at the meaning of the term. "Semetic" is a word that broadly describes the speakers of a Semitic language, which includes Hebrew, Arabic, Coptic, Berber, Assyrian, and other smaller or dead languages. "Semite" basically means "Decendant of Shem" who was, in biblical terms, one of Noahs three sons, the others being Japheth (who is associated with Europe and its people) and Ham (who is associated with Africa and its people). This term denotes bronze age ignorances, that is, the old knowledge of only 3 continents, and that everyone in those three continents is decended from one of Noahs sons.

"Anti-Semitism" describes hatred of the Jews, which is in itself a misleading term, because Arabs are equally semitic as Hebrew-speaking Jewish people, yet a member of the JDL is almost never described as an anti-semite. So, in contexts to the term, Semite reffers only to the Jews.

But, as we all well know, the Jews are not the only people inflicted with hatred by any means. So why do they have their own term that has connentations that are greater even that "racist"? Why do we not reffer to people who hate Whites as "Anti-Japhites" and people who hate Blacks ad "Anti-Hamites", or even better, coin new terms that have no religious connentations whatsoever? Or, conversely, why dont we simply call people who hate Jewish people racists, instead of giving that racist hatred a special name?

Now, one could argue that hatred of the Jews has been more violent historically than hatred of other races, but this is a highly contendable statement. For instance, 90% of the Romani living in Europe were brutally wiped out in the Holocaust (Porajmos), but I am not aware of a term that describes hatred of them. Indeed, if I say somebody "Jew'd me out of $5", it would immediately be recognized as an unacceptable term, but if I said that I was "Gyped out of $5" (Gypsy being the derogitory term for the Romani people) hardly an eyebrow would be raised.

So why does the term exist? Why do we continue to put double standards on racism by giving it a different name for one specific group? Is it not racist to think that if somebody commits a hate crime against an Arab, Indian, Mexican, Korean, Canadian, black person, Aboriginal, or whatever, its one thing, but to commit the same crime against a Jew is different enough to deserve its own term?

A Jew is equal to any other person, hatred against the Jews should be dealt with in the exact same manner as it is dealt with when commited against a person of any other Ethnic or national group. Racism is Racism is Racism. It is racism when an Indigenous person is persecuted, it is Racism when a Jewish person is persecuted.

These are my thoughts, what does everybody else think of this matter?

[midnight marauder]

A Jew is equal to any other person, hatred against the Jews should be dealt with in the exact same manner as it is dealt with when commited against a person of any other Ethnic or national group.

Since I don't have much time before I leave, I'll make this short.

First, I agree completely that racism is racism is racism. I don't think there's any denying that statement.

However, would you not agree that racism takes different forms? That although the ends are all unquestionably horrific, the means to these ends differs based on the individual race? That, for example, racism against the Sinti and Roma people of Europe is different than racism against other minority groups in the world?

I don't think it's particularly right to make a special distinction between antisemitism and racism. One clearly encompasses the other; a fact lost quite often among some "intellectuals." But is it not useful to analyze racism based on the individual context of what exactly is going on?

Not that one couldn't do that without having a separate "official name" for that type of prejudice. But I suppose it could have some utility.

On a side note for future reference, prejudice against the Romani and other ethnicities commonly reffered to with the term "gypsies" is called ziganism.

[Dr Mindbender]

Here in Northern Ireland hatred on the basis of religion is simply referred to as 'sectarianism'. I've never understood why the same term isnt applied to anti-jewish hatred.
:unsure:

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 07, 2006 12:56 pm
Here in Northern Ireland hatred on the basis of religion is simply referred to as 'sectarianism'. I've never understood why the same term isnt applied to anti-jewish hatred.
:unsure:
the answer to this is that hatred of jews cannot be understoof simply in terms of religious rivalry - since the late 19th century in particular it has been deeply characterised by notions of racial and cultural degeneracy.


to answer the question posed in this thread i use the words racism and anti-semitism to describe anti-jewish hatred. The use of the term anti-semtiism reflects the fact that - as with othe forms of racism , ie anti-arab racism- there is a distinct intellectual tradition behind hatred of the jews. To recognise this. does not mean that one sees anti-semtiism as worse than other forms of racism. It is simply a useful concept to describe a specific cultural and intellectual tradition. In the same way that the concept of 'orientalism' describes the western colonial view of the east. I believe this post fails to distinguish between difference and inequality, insofar as it assuimes that recognising a distint traidtion aof anti-jewish thought necessarily treats that tradition as more significant than other forms of racism.

In conclusion, i feel there is no reason for anti-semitism not to remain a useful concept.

[TC]

anti-semetism isn't the same as normal forms of 'racism' in that there is no functional jewish social race, non-orthodox jews can't be visually catagorized as such for social purposes the way police can hass someone because they see that they're black. Although who is a jewish person and the nature of teh catagory is defined differently according to the speaker, it is essentially several cultural/ethnic groups that are socially related to each other based on a shared religious community.


Frankly though i suspect the reason why 'anti-semitism' is 'special' among racisms (and true anti-semetics are 'racist' because unlike the majority of people they believe in a 'jewish race') is actually because there is no institutional anti-semetism anymore, anti-semites are essentially marignal impoverished people, and as minority populations go, jewish people are not victimized in contemporary society and do far better on average than other minority racial/ethnic groups like blacks for instance (as american cultural-ethnic groups go for instance i'm sure jews probably rank with wasps as the best off socio-economically on average, even compared to other minority white groups).

Therefore, talking about 'anti-semitism' rather than 'racism' is a very safe sort of politically correct focus for the ruling class in liberal democratic societies, who genuninely have less problems with jewish people than they do with say, recent immigrants or black people, so by talking about 'anti-semites' the politically correct enemy they've identified is always someone outside the power structure, which is not the case when talking about 'racists' (and certaintly not 'islamophobes'!)

[Cheung Mo]

I'm anti-semitic: I believe that Hebrew mythologies and the belief systems that stem from it have crippled the development of Middle Eastern and Western civilisation. I don't believe, however, that people should be dehumanised or made to suffer for holding these believes unless they use them as justification to do the same to others. Rights are not equal: They are reciprocal.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 07, 2006 09:36 am
I'm anti-semitic: I believe that Hebrew mythologies and the belief systems that stem from it have crippled the development of Middle Eastern and Western civilisation. I don't believe, however, that people should be dehumanised or made to suffer for holding these believes unless they use them as justification to do the same to others. Rights are not equal: They are reciprocal.
Then you're anti-Judiasm, not anti-Semitic.

[amanondeathrow]

I'm anti-semitic: I believe that Hebrew mythologies and the belief systems that stem from it have crippled the development of Middle Eastern and Western civilisation.

You obviously have no understanding of the history of that term if you are willing to even associate yourself with it.

[EwokUtopia]

We often hear of people being described as racists and anti-semites, however, as if they were seperate.

The problem with this word is when it is hurled at the opponents of Zionism to shut them up. This word has such a connentation that to call an anti-zionist an anti-semite shuts them up alot faster than calling a zionist a racist shuts them up. Even Jewish opponents of Zionism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mebuDbe-4Is) have been repeatedly labelled anti-semites. It is one of the most misleading terms in the media today. Opposing Israeli Nationalism is not the same as hatred of the Jews, though I think there is hardly any reason for me to have to state this here.

The Jews have every right to live in Palestine as equal citizens, but they have no right to deny that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years, and no amount of ethno-religious racism can bend that fact. Yet, if I say this to many people, especially in the mainstream media, they would try to misconstrue these words as "antisemitic". This is my problem with this term.

[Oachkatzlschwoaf]

I agree with the fact that Anti-Semitism should include all Semitic people... not just the Jewish people... It really is misleading. There's always a culture that hates the Jewish people, enough that they get their own word I suppose.

Recently I've run into a new word: Antizyganism, or a hatred for the Roma (Gypsies).

[LSD]

So my dilemma is this, does anti-semitism exist as a seperate form of hatred, or is it one in the same as racism in general. Why does hatred of Jewish people recieve its own title that is in many cases even more politically loaded than the word Racism?

Because antisemitism is a unique hate, both historically and sociologically.

Besides, "antisemitism" (the word), as invented by Willhelm Marr (although I suppose you could trace it back to von Treitschke), explicitly means "jew-hatred". It was coined with that specific meaning and it has carried that meaning for over a century and a half.

When Marr coined the term, he based it on contemporary German racial theory about "aryan" races and "semitic" races. Within that 19th century paradigm, "semitic" effectively meant Jewish and Jewish "tainted".

Philologically and linguistically, the word "semitic" meant largely what it does today, but within the racial "sciences" it had become a short-hand for "jewish blood". To understand how that happend, you have go back to von Treitschke and especially Ernest Renan's use of the word.

In any case, the political reality is that antisemtism is a specific kind of hatred, very much tied in with 19th century "scientific" racism and liberal protestantism. Diluting the word to mean hatred of all "semitic" peoples, a relatively rarer phenonemenon and of much less historical importance, only serves to dilute the concept and minimize the cultural and historic role of European antisemitism.

Insofar as the word itself, the simple truth is that sometimes historical etymology just does not correlate with dissective lexigraphy; just look at "homophobia".


"Anti-Semitism" describes hatred of the Jews, which is in itself a misleading term, because Arabs are equally semitic as Hebrew-speaking Jewish people, yet a member of the JDL is almost never described as an anti-semite.

That's because they're not. They may be racists, but antisemitism has a specific meaning developed over centuries of usage and association.

Whether that definition flows directly out its construction is irrelevent, that's what dictionaries are for.


A Jew is equal to any other person, hatred against the Jews should be dealt with in the exact same manner as it is dealt with when commited against a person of any other Ethnic or national group.

All discrimination should ultimately be dealt with the same way, but that doesn't mean that having seperate words to describe different sorts of discrimination isn't useful.

The fact is the nature of antisemitism is functionaly and hisotrically quite different from most other forms of racism and, as such, it is convenient to have a way to refer to it specifically.

It's the same reason that we distinguish between sexism and homophobia. Both are irrational prejudices, but becayse they have different origins and because they manifest differently, we use different words to describe them.


I'm anti-semitic: I believe that Hebrew mythologies and the belief systems that stem from it have crippled the development of Middle Eastern and Western civilisation.

You're a bit of a moron, aren't you?

Anti-semitism refers to the hatred of the Jewish "race". If that's what you meant, expect to be banned; if it's not than you are dangerously ignorant on the subject.

Either way I would encourage you to do some serious research on this subject so as to avoid idiotic outbursts like this in the future.


The problem with this word is when it is hurled at the opponents of Zionism to shut them up.

That's not a problem with the word, it's a problem with the politics of many who use it. If the specific term didn't exist, Zionists would find some other way to equate their oponents with bigotry and Naziism.


The Jews have every right to live in Palestine as equal citizens, but they have no right to deny that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years

And that has wnat to do with antisemism?

It seems to me that your problem isn't with the word or the concept of antisemitism, it's with Zionism and its attempt to co-opt the concept to serve the interests of the state of Israel.

Now while you're perfectly justified in being offended by that political tactic, it has absolutely nothing to do with the ostensible topic of this thread, the existance of antisemitism as distinct from racism in general.

[BuyOurEverything]

The problem with this word is when it is hurled at the opponents of Zionism to shut them up. This word has such a connentation that to call an anti-zionist an anti-semite shuts them up alot faster than calling a zionist a racist shuts them up.

That's not because anti-semetic is a worse label than racist, it's just because it tends to stick easier in North American society.


Even Jewish opponents of Zionism have been repeatedly labelled anti-semites.

I really wish people would stop using these guys in arguments. They are a marginilized group of religious extremists who believe the Jews are supposed to "suffer in exile" until the "coming of the Mesiah" and thus oppose Israel's existence. They couldn't care less about human rights for Palestinians.


Opposing Israeli Nationalism is not the same as hatred of the Jews, though I think there is hardly any reason for me to have to state this here.

The Jews have every right to live in Palestine as equal citizens, but they have no right to deny that to the people who have lived there for hundreds of years, and no amount of ethno-religious racism can bend that fact.

I'm not really sure what the point of all that was.


Yet, if I say this to many people, especially in the mainstream media, they would try to misconstrue these words as "antisemitic". This is my problem with this term.

Sure some people are going to call you that, just as some people will call you a "racist" if you support affirmative action, or a "terrorist sympathizer" if you don't support unlimited presidential power. The media is owned by big business and represents their interests. That really has nothing to do with this discussion.

As for why anti-semetism is a seperate term, I would say the main reason is that nobody has actually ever decided what a "jew" is. Some people say it is a religion, some a race, some a culture, some a nationality, some a mixture of two or more, etc. Racism refers to hating someone based on their race. Therefore, antisemitism cannot be racism unless the jews are a race.

Hating Muslims or Christians is not racism, it's religious bigotry. Hating Mexicans or Americans or Germans or Japanese is not racism, it's xenophobia. Hating black people or Asians is racism. You can argue that they're all equally bad, but they are not the same.

[EwokUtopia]

Well, I use the term myself quite often, but to think of it, Anti-Semitism is a term that holds a higher degree of political charge than homophobia, islamophobia or even racism. It certainly holds a higher political power than Ziganism, which I only became aware of through this thread.
But why?
It is problematic when one type of racism recieves a seperate term that is more politically loaded than any other. For instance, if one was to call Bush a racist (which people do all the time because it is true) it barely affects his political standing in america, and he still gets re-elected. However, If Bush was found to be an Anti-Semite, would he have a shot?
Do you think Mel could ever become Governator?
If Anti-Semitism was just viewed as another term for a specific kind of racism, yes, I would be for that completely. But the two terms are not equal. The only political epithet that outranks anti-semite that I can think of is "fascist" or "nazi".
Anti-semitism is terrible, but no more terrible than anti-arabism, anti-hamitism, anti-latinism, ziganism (or is it anti-ziganism, im still new to the term), sinophobia, homophobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, and others.
Im not sure if sexism is equal or worse than these, but I think you get the picture.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 09:52 pm
As for why anti-semetism is a seperate term, I would say the main reason is that nobody has actually ever decided what a "jew" is. Some people say it is a religion, some a race, some a culture, some a nationality, some a mixture of two or more, etc. Racism refers to hating someone based on their race. Therefore, antisemitism cannot be racism unless the jews are a race.

Hating Muslims or Christians is not racism, it's religious bigotry. Hating Mexicans or Americans or Germans or Japanese is not racism, it's xenophobia. Hating black people or Asians is racism. You can argue that they're all equally bad, but they are not the same.
Good point there. That is a really good explaination of the term. Although, there is also a term Anti-Judaism, specific bigotry against the Jewish religion, commonly held by Christian Fundies.

[IronLion]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 07, 2006 03:36 pm
I'm anti-semitic: I believe that Hebrew mythologies and the belief systems that stem from it have crippled the development of Middle Eastern and Western civilisation.
You think Jews have crippled the development of civilization? You've got to be kidding me. I mean, for one, without Jews there would be no such thing as, ahem, COMMUNISM!

[phoenixoftime]

Just to throw another spanner in the works, here's an article from yet another annoying liberal thinktank:

Marx's Legacy of Hatred (http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=265)

"Marx's anti-Semitism, now well documented, was derived from his economic theories. And his anti Jewish tract makes the connection quite clear. For Marx the Jews were not so much a religion, or a race, but a cultural phenomenon. What created Judaism, said Marx, was a desire to seek monetary profits."

:wacko:

[Sky]

During the course of its history, anti-Semitism has adopted various forms—from religious and psychological prejudice and segregation, which are manifested primarily in the area of everyday relations, to policies of forced resettlement and even physical annihilation of Jews, which have been carried out by state organs. Anti-Semitism as a social phenomenon has been utilized by exploitative ruling classes toward various ends—for political and economic purposes, for inflaming national feeling, for drawing workers away from the struggle to resolve fundamental political problems. All progressive forces condemn anti-Semitism. The struggle against race and national discrimination, Zionism, and anti-Semitism remains a fundamental practical task of the progressive democratic movement.

The historical roots of anti-Semitism go back to antiquity when the Jews found themselves in the situation of being a national religious minority in the new countries in which they settled. By its practices in the areas of worship and everyday life, by the proclamation of the Jews as a people “chosen by God,” and for other reasons, Judaism marked them off sharply from the populations that surrounded them. During the course of many centuries, socioreligious anti-Semitism was the most clearly expressed form. Enmity toward the heterodox Jews was maintained in Christian countries by devices of every possible kind: churchmen charged Jews with the murder of Christ, with murdering Christian children and using their blood to prepare matzoth, with defiling Christian sacred objects, and with other crimes. The social and economic motives of anti-Semitism grew out of the fact that Jews had concentrated economically on trade, usury, and handicrafts; as commodity-cash relations developed, Jews became a serious threat to the local commercial and handicraft population. Anti-Semitism was expressed not only in the segregation of Jews but also in the complete or partial expulsion of Jews from a number of European countries.

A major contributor to the spread of anti-Semitism was the spread of Zionism, which became ever more reactionary. Zionism is an ideology, the ramified system of organizations and political practice of the large Jewish bourgeoisie, which is intertwined with the monopolistic circles of the USA and other imperialist powers. Contemporary Zionism ignores the real interests of the Jewish people; its essential content is violent chauvinism and malicious anti-communism. Zionist leaders, expounding ideas of the “age-old” nature of anti-Semitism, call for Jews to isolate themselves from other peoples; in this way they have in effect increased and continue to increase anti-Semitism and utilize it in their own interests. In essence, Zionism is based on the total extermination of the Arab people and their replacement by other conquering elements.

[jake williams]

A couple things I might suggest, the whole sphere of "anti-Semitism" has come up for me a lot lately.


About the specific question - why the pervasive use of the separate term (especially when other types of racism, I'll note specifically anti-Arab racism, are generally, in the mainstream, both far more common and far more vicious), I think there are several reasons. One's just blind chance - the fact that our culture especially has a long history of anti-Jewish racism is, partly, just totally random. It's just a strange bit of historical occasion.

A corollary to this is that anti-Semitism has itself defined Jewish communities - the whole Zionism thing seems extremely unlikely to have gained much steam were the world not legitimately viciously racist (at least historically) against Jewish people.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms you one can and probably should make of Jewish culture and tradition, but this is trivial, it's true for every culture and tradition. That said, these factors are differentiated strongly from potential "reasons" for racism. Reasons are objective, in that I'm sure there are neutral or even positive (not to exclusion, of course) characteristics of Jewish culture & tradition that lead to the existence and form of anti-Semitism. Particularly, I do think there are aspects of at least some Jewish cultures which are openly opposed to integration and assimilation, intermarrying or even the fact that anyone bothers speaking Hebrew anymore - but the same can be said of all kinds of other cultures, though I don't know if one can differentiate between the theological justifications for maintaining Quranic Arabic as a working language, and the reasons that Hebrew is still an official language. I mean, I really don't think we should be bothering with Gaelic at this point either.

All this said - while a lot of times I'm bothered by the recognition of the Jewish culture and ethnicity and even religion as sort of a, separate case in human history, in some regards it is the case. Importantly, a major differentiating factor is the history of anti-Semitism. There just isn't a good analogue, especially in the West, it just happens to have a lot of factors that differentiate it from others, I mean, its size, its influence, its place in Western history and culture (no other ethnic group, as far as I know, has a third to a half of its population living in the United States, and while a lot of nonsense exists about the relevance of this, it's still not trivial), its history, its interconnection with a religion - it is complicated, and I think there are reasons it should be considered separately.

There are, of course, other important special cases of racism, and at this point in Western history anti-Semitism receives far, far too much relative attention.


I might point out that I'm sure there are people, Arabs especially (maybe almost only Arabs), who really do hold racist views against Jews because of the situation in Palestine. This is difficult to deal with. One on hand, racism is always both irrational and horrible. But I think we're committing a severe fallacy to suggest that these people are just using the disgusting process of the occupation to "justify" anti-Semitic views they'd hold anyway. While I'm sure plenty of people do this, I suspect there are plenty of people also who are just genuinely repulsed, saddened, and angered, and who feel they're sensible (though they're obviously not) in turning this upon Jews as people in general. Further complicating this is that a great deal of Jews, the international community being small, actually do support the actions of the Israeli government - albeit, I'm sure, many in ignorance of the actual situation.


I don't know, but I've a growing suspicion, that there are two big (maybe the two major) reasons anti-Semitism has undergone such a shift in the mainstream West. It used to just be par, everyone did it. I can't think of anywhere in the West, Western Europe, America, Russia, hell, Québec - everywhere has a horrible history of anti-Semitism. But for one thing, I think it would be very interesting if one could study American anti-Semitism, and what I suspect one would find is a changing place of American Jewish culture in the larger class structure of American society. While this is just my impression, really wild speculation, I do think that they've done substantially better than they did, say, a generation or two ago, socioeconomically. I don't think that it can be denied that, if this is true, it places the Left in an extremely difficult place.

The other reason that seems fairly likely is that the idea that anti-Semitism is a special kind of horrible helps justify the Anglo-American West given its role in World War II. The idea being that if We do it it's Really Good, and conversely, the fact that We "fought anti-Semitism" (as is the standard line now, of course no one invaded Germany to save the Jews, as of course they should have were no other options available) means that anti-Semitism must be Really Bad. So I think it's partly a standarized allegory in response to recent Western history, and its distortions.

[Forward Union]

TC's post is fairly accurate.

However.

You can get people of the Jewish faith from any racial background, Black, White, Chinese, whatever. But the racist characature of a ' Jewish person' is based on a racial group of people who's oragins are unknown. Some people speculate Egypt, though this is based on biblical stories, and others argue they simply originated in Judea.

The point is they are not caucasian, celtic, nordic, or anything like that but are still essentially "white". They do have different physical appearances, but these features overlap into all racial groups in Europe, because we keep shagging eachother.

All I am really saying is that there are a group of people who probably make up the majority of the Jewish faith base, who have a different ethnic origin to the European racial groups. But to be honest I feel uncomfortable using the term race anyway. I'm really only refering to genetically inherited physical features, in the same way if you have two short fat parents, their child will probably be of a similar shape.

Interestingly the Nazis did not massacre the blacks, asians, hispanics or whatever, (although they certainly did kill and discriminate against them) they saw Jews as a non-race. In Nazi ideology, although all races have their own nations, the Jews do not, and instead survive as a parasitic race. So whereas the Nazis are happy to "repatriate" people to wherever, they are not prepaired to do the same for Jews, and instead feel they need to be erradicated.

[jake williams]

Interestingly the Nazis did not massacre the blacks, asians, hispanics or whatever, (although they certainly did kill and discriminate against them) they saw Jews as a non-race. In Nazi ideology, although all races have their own nations, the Jews do not, and instead survive as a parasitic race. So whereas the Nazis are happy to "repatriate" people to wherever, they are not prepaired to do the same for Jews, and instead feel they need to be erradicated.
You know, it's interesting you say that, because I've heard from one, maybe two reputable sources very scant mentions that there was some agreement between (some) early Zionists and the pre-war Nazi party, that there was actually almost a chance of them both agreeing on the setting up of a Jewish homeland, or something of the sort. It's something I'd love to research but I have no idea where to look, a quick Google just comes up with a bunch of, ironically enough, basically neo-Nazis, just viciously anti-Semitic websites with no credibility.

Anyone know anything about this? Decent sources would be helpful.

[Sergei Simonov]

You know, it's interesting you say that, because I've heard from one, maybe two reputable sources very scant mentions that there was some agreement between (some) early Zionists and the pre-war Nazi party, that there was actually almost a chance of them both agreeing on the setting up of a Jewish homeland, or something of the sort. It's something I'd love to research but I have no idea where to look, a quick Google just comes up with a bunch of, ironically enough, basically neo-Nazis, just viciously anti-Semitic websites with no credibility.

Anyone know anything about this? Decent sources would be helpful.

Neo-nazis, for reasons beyond my ken, like to overstate the level of cooperation between the Hitler government and the German Zionist establishment. The Nazis were not Zionists and Zionists were not Nazis.

There were, however, socio-economic and political realities that both groups had to contend with. When the Hitler government came to power Germany was economically weak. Any significant move against the Jewish community at this point risked financial reprisal from middle class Jews of the other industrialized nations of the world and was thus not in the interests of the bourgeois backers of the NSDAP. At this point there were some meetings between the Zionist Federation of Germany (ZVfD) and the Nazi party. It was not until the German economy had been kickstarted and the bourgeois Nazis were confident in their ability to continue prospering that anti-Jewish measures became feasible (and even desirable for competitive reasons given the bourgeois class position of much of Germany's Jewish community at the time).

The Zionists, as well, were unaware of just how bad things would get for them as the Third Reich established itself. There were attempts to cast Zionism in a "folkish" light and the ZVfD went so far as to endorse the marriage edicts of the Nuremburg laws as appropriate measures against assimilation. This sort of collaboration likely had two main roots. First, there was the fact that Germany's Jews were among Europe's most assimilated at that point in history. Germany was the birthplace of Reform Judaism and intermarriage was so common in Germany that Nazi racial laws classified Germans with one Jewish grandparent as Aryan. Secondly, a minority group possessed of the middle class aversion to violence is likely to take the "just go along to get along" approach to the rise of an ideologically hostile government.

A plan to re-settle Germany's Jews in Palestine was suggested by the ZVfD, but was never seriously considered by the Reich as it was geopolitically impossible. Despite Nazi overtures to Great Britain based on "Teutonic unity," Hitler's strategists were well aware of the British Empire's hostility to competing powers and were thus far more interested in cultivating sympathy among subject local populations in the Middle East than they were in shipping Jews to the region.

[kromando33]

Their is a difference between being anti-semitic and opposing Zionist ultranationalism.

[Reuben]

you dont say...

[spartan]

The trouble is that the Zionists always label anyone oppossing their Imperialism as anti-Semitic because this will force politically correct people to back off due to not wishing to be insensitive.

When i see modern day Israel (A puppet of America) it reminds me of Herods Judaea (A puppet of Rome).

The modern day Palestinian resistance against the American puppet state of Israel is tantamount to the Zealots resistance to the Roman puppet that was Herods Judaea.

It seems that history really does repeat itself.

[guerilla E]

1912, the President of the World Zionist Organization (and the founder from what I remember), outlined a rather interesting point;

"Each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, if she doesn't want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already had too many Jews."
- Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organisation

To be a Zionist you need to be Anti-Semetic.
Being tolerant and accepting of the Jewish people is counter-zionism because Zionists argue, from that time period anyway, that Jews cannot be accepted into any society other than their own homeland. Israeli Nationalism and Zionism are different idealogies, because historically Zionism has argued that Jews cannot be tolerated by any other country or culture. Nationalism simply promotes patriotic sentiment, perhaps using Zionism or other idealogies as vehicles or platforms for that.

Anti-Semitism is perhaps the greatest advantage of Zionism, because each attack or insult will actually polarize individual's conviction in the Zionist idealogy.

My personal belief in the matter is that being Anti-Zionist is being Semetic because you are promoting the tolerance of Jewish people within all communities and negating their claim for a 'country' (which should apply to all 'countries'). Being Anti-Semetic is stupid because all you are doing is supporting the claim for Israel, supporting the racist idealogy behind it and actually helping Zionism grow further within Jewish communities.

The speech was given in Berlin, Germany.

[MarxSchmarx]

For instance, 90% of the Romani living in Europe were brutally wiped out in the Holocaust (Porajmos), but I am not aware of a term that describes hatred of them. Indeed, if I say somebody "Jew'd me out of $5", it would immediately be recognized as an unacceptable term, but if I said that I was "Gyped out of $5" (Gypsy being the derogitory term for the Romani people) hardly an eyebrow would be raised.


Actually there is. It's called anti-ziganism and at least one famous person has been charged with being anti-Zigatic (?)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/now-gypsies-want-borat-banned/2006/10/18/1160850984396.html