'sigh'
The Khazar Myth and the new antisemitism
- Thread starter Archangel M
- Start date
'sigh'
Empty Hands
Senior Master
No it doesn't. If it did, every time I criticized human rights abuses in the US without noting the long litany of countries which are worse I would be "anti-American". Every time I criticized aspects of Christianity which are patriarchal without noting that other religions are worse I would be "anti-Christian". The topic is the topic, not everything else in the world must be brought into it.
In the case of Israel vs. Egypt, Israel gets the criticism because most people expect better. Israel claims to be a democratic country which respects human rights. Egypt is a semi-despotic state. That's the same reason that the US was harshly criticized for using torture to prosecute our war, when it is far worse and far more extensive in other countries. Criticizing torture when the US does it without mentioning it is worse in Syria or Somalia does not an anti-American make.
CoryKS
Senior Master
So the obvious solution is for Israel to declare herself a military dictatorship. Then she too can take advantage of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Criticizing Israel for her actions agains Gaza while failing to mention that Egypt, who also shares a border with Gaza does the same or worse is criticizing Israel for the sake of criticizing Israel, and that borders on anti-semitism.
If you would only critcize the US human rights record, and never any other country, then yes, that's makes you anti-American.
As I've said, it's not the criticism that bothers us. It's being singly criticized for actions that no other nation would get criticized for.
It's being accused of commiting genocide when the Palestinian population is growing.
BTW, not mentioned very often is the fact that the West Bank currently has the fastest growing economy in the region. That the PA security forces have been so successful at stopping terrorist attacks on Israel that Israel relies on their intelligence reports. Contrast that with the situation in GAza. The only difference is that, while not perfect, the government in the WB is not lobbing rockets at Israel on a daily basis.
If you would only critcize the US human rights record, and never any other country, then yes, that's makes you anti-American.
As I've said, it's not the criticism that bothers us. It's being singly criticized for actions that no other nation would get criticized for.
It's being accused of commiting genocide when the Palestinian population is growing.
BTW, not mentioned very often is the fact that the West Bank currently has the fastest growing economy in the region. That the PA security forces have been so successful at stopping terrorist attacks on Israel that Israel relies on their intelligence reports. Contrast that with the situation in GAza. The only difference is that, while not perfect, the government in the WB is not lobbing rockets at Israel on a daily basis.
No but criticising America for torture while extolling the virtues of Syria or Somalia will make yo an anti America. That what's happening with Israel, it gets the criticisim while it's 'ah poor Palestinians'. . . . now that's playihg the victim!
xJOHNx
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 381
- Reaction score
- 11
I'm actually a lot closer than you think. I'm from Belgium
As far as I know, my country did not invade Grenada.
Belgium DID rob Congo from it's riches, enslaved alot of black people and was just plain nasty against the population.
No point in hiding that, or not condeming it.
I'll read the rest tomorrow, I'm off for the moment. Good night!
I'm actually a lot closer than you think. I'm from Belgium
As far as I know, my country did not invade Grenada.
Belgium DID rob Congo from it's riches, enslaved alot of black people and was just plain nasty against the population.
No point in hiding that, or not condeming it.
I'll read the rest tomorrow, I'm off for the moment. Good night!
Been to Belgium many times.
I'm well aware of what went on in the Belgian Congo and no, like many things that Britain has done there is no point in denying it but and heres a big but, was it the Christians in Belguim specifically that are to be blamed or is it the Belgian authorities?
When criticism is addressed to the Israeli government that is the correct form, to blame the Jews en masse isn't. All Israelis aren't Jews. the Knesset consists of member of parties as diverse as Communist (an Arab party) to Ultra Orthodox (anti Zionist), Orthodox (pro Zionist), there's far right, centre, far left, pensioners party,every shade of political thought going and not all members of the Knesset are Jews, there's also Arabs and Druze. There's three Arab political parties who hold seats in the Knesset. Plus there is a sizable number of Christian citizens in Israel as there is in Gaza, something people might like to take a look at is the persecution of Arab Christians by Hamas and the Muslimification of Bethlehem where Christians are being ousted from their homes.
By all means complain about and criticise the Israeli government and it's leaders but don't scream at all Jews.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Yet "strident" or biased criticism of Israel has been described in this very thread as "anti-Semitism". It seems like Israel is synonymous with Jews in the minds of many defenders of Israel.
Actually, it's the reverse. Israel as become the new word for Jews. That is what many call the 'new anti-semitism' referred to in the thread title. The standard defense is that the criticizer is not an anti-semite, he's against Israel, or against Zionism, but is not criticizing those in particular.
You'll disagree, that's fine. You're not the one living our reality.
Here's a quick example of our reality. We have security at the door of our synagogue. I don't recall seeing that in churches.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
I don't disagree that many criticisms of Israel may be motivated by anti-Semitism more generally. What is becoming apparent in these conversations though is the arbitrary nature of when the criticism of Israel stops being directed at the country only, and starts being anti-Semitism.
The criticism must not be "strident." One must always take care to include the laundry list of worse offenders when one criticizes Israel (a tu quoque logical fallacy, BTW). The criticism must always be "balanced."
I certainly never take such care criticizing any other country, including my own. If a country is doing something wrong, then it is wrong, no matter what anyone else is doing. Bringing up the behavior of others is a red herring, just as the behavior of Islamic terrorists is used to justify the mistreatment and torture of prisoners by the USA. My parents certainly never accepted such excuses when I was growing up, if I did wrong, then it was wrong, no matter what my sister or Timmy from school was doing.
The way this argument is constructed appears to accomplish two things: 1) deflect legitimate criticism and 2) deter legitimate criticism. I don't like the arbitrary and self-serving nature of it.
None of this is to say that anti-Semitism doesn't exist, nor that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself. But both can be dealt with in good faith using the same standards that every other country must abide by. Again and again, I come to the example of the USA for our recent behavior. We deserved that criticism. It didn't matter that 9/11 happened, nor that Islamic terrorists or Syria or wherever are worse. We should have handled it better. Our critics were not "anti-American" for making the criticisms.
I totally fail to see where we are trying to prevent legitimate criticisim of israel when we've told you how much we critiicise it's and we aren't defending any particular action it's made just asking that people look at all sides before blaming the Jews for everything, as has been said we've been blamed for 9/11 among a great amonount of other things, this thread isn't about Israel in particular but anti semitism generally.
As for criticising America, you have tried that as a non American have you? Look at the thread titled 'something for everyone' an ex pop singer criticises America and us Brits get a strident post reminding us who won the war for us, yeah thanks.
As for anti semitic attacks in the UK do have a read of this.
http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/CST-incidents-report-09-for-web.pdf
As for criticising America, you have tried that as a non American have you? Look at the thread titled 'something for everyone' an ex pop singer criticises America and us Brits get a strident post reminding us who won the war for us, yeah thanks.
As for anti semitic attacks in the UK do have a read of this.
http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/CST-incidents-report-09-for-web.pdf
For those that didn't read the CST report. From pages 26 and 27.
"The distinction between antisemitic and anti-Israel activity is often
subtle and is subject to much heated debate and disagreement.
Clearly, it is incorrect to define all anti-Israel activity as antisemitic
in content or motivation, yet it is also clear that much contemporary
antisemitism is expressed within the framework of, or is motivated
by, extreme feelings over the Israel/Palestine issue. Drawing out
these distinctions, and deciding on where the dividing lines lie,
is one of the most difficult areas of CSTs work in recording
and analysing hate crime."subtle and is subject to much heated debate and disagreement.
Clearly, it is incorrect to define all anti-Israel activity as antisemitic
in content or motivation, yet it is also clear that much contemporary
antisemitism is expressed within the framework of, or is motivated
by, extreme feelings over the Israel/Palestine issue. Drawing out
these distinctions, and deciding on where the dividing lines lie,
is one of the most difficult areas of CSTs work in recording
"The political discourse used in an incident may also be the reason
why it is accepted or rejected as antisemitic. The exact nature
and content of each incident is assessed individually, but some
basic guidelines can be applied. For example, incidents that equate
Israel with Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic,
whereas those that compare Israel to, for instance, apartheid
South Africa normally would not be. While the charge that Israel
practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same
visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness
as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular
meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. There were 68 antisemitic
incidents recorded by CST in 2009 that involved the comparison
of Israel or Zionism with Nazi Germany."
We do understand the difference between criticism of Israel ( though that should not be violent or threatening) and criticism of people just because they are Jewish. This isn't playing the victim nor do we believe we are above reproach in anything. As I said we ask that the criticism be fair and not violent, threatening or malicious.
why it is accepted or rejected as antisemitic. The exact nature
and content of each incident is assessed individually, but some
basic guidelines can be applied. For example, incidents that equate
Israel with Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic,
whereas those that compare Israel to, for instance, apartheid
South Africa normally would not be. While the charge that Israel
practises apartheid upsets many Jews, it does not contain the same
visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness
as does the comparison with Nazism, which carries particular
meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust. There were 68 antisemitic
incidents recorded by CST in 2009 that involved the comparison
of Israel or Zionism with Nazi Germany."
We do understand the difference between criticism of Israel ( though that should not be violent or threatening) and criticism of people just because they are Jewish. This isn't playing the victim nor do we believe we are above reproach in anything. As I said we ask that the criticism be fair and not violent, threatening or malicious.
