Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumWhy anti-Semitism is moving toward the mainstream - Alan Dershowitz
Source: Jerusalem Post
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Brian Leiter and Ron Paul are guilty of helping to legitimate the oldest of bigotries. Shame on them!
For the first time since the end of World War II, classic anti-Semitic tropes – “the Jews” control the world and are to blame for everything that goes wrong, including the financial crisis; “The Jews killed Christian children in order to use the blood to bake matza; the Holocaust never happened – are becoming acceptable and legitimate subjects for academic and political discussion.
To understand why these absurd and reprehensible views, once reserved for the racist fringes of academia and politics, are moving closer to the mainstream, consider the attitudes of two men, one an academic, the other a politician, toward those who express or endorse such bigotry. The academic is Prof. Brian Leiter. The politician is Ron Paul.
You’ve probably never heard of Leiter. He’s a relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence, who is trying to elevate his profile by publishing a gossipy blog about law school professors. He is a colleague of John Mearsheimer, a prominent and world famous professor at the University of Chicago.
Read more: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=252440
Alan Dershowitz is back!
Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed in the article.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Behind the Aegis
(53,987 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(including antimuslimism, which is equally unacceptable).
But criticism of Israeli security policy is NOT antisemitism. Nothing people criticize about what the Israeli government does t Palestinians is truly necessary for Israel's survival. All decent people agree that there's no excuse for expanding any of the current West Bank settlements or starting any new ones, for example.
And opposition to the continued West Bank military occupation is simply opposition to injustice.
I'm with Dersh as to what he says about Ron Paul, though. We all are.
OK?
Behind the Aegis
(53,987 posts)BTW, there is no such thing as "antimuslimism," it is called Islamophobia.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We both know the underlying implications of Dershowitz's arguments here:
He's STILL trying to equate any criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and he's STILL trying to argue that antisemitism needs to be fought but no other forms of bigotry are any real sources of concern, even though the other forms of bigotry have just as much potential for murderous outcomes as antisemitism does(the second point I've made there is something you'd have to agree with as an LGBT person, of course).
Behind the Aegis
(53,987 posts)I didn't create the definition. I had NOTHING to do with the creation of it's meaning or naming.
Also, don't tell me what I know or "must agree with." This artcile was about ANTI-SEMITISM, it was NOT about bigotry in general, nor was it about declaring anti-Semitism more important than all other forms. The only person making that argument is YOU. If you came to the conclusion that Dershowitz's arguments were equating "any" criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, then that is your interpretation. I didn't see it that way, nor do I see it that way.
And DO NOT call me a liar again. That is the last time!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I do not attribute arguments to people that are not the arguments they are making. Extrapolating logical conclusions from positions people take is not the same thing implying anyone takes positions they don't actually take.
Behind the Aegis
(53,987 posts)That's why is it called a "strawman." If you stop, then I won't say it because it won't be accurate.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You just use that phrase as an excuse to avoid rebutting any arguments I make. It's juvenile and it's unfair for you to do that. Besides, the Left DOES fight against antisemitism(along with all other forms of bigotry, including the equally toxic and dangerous bigotry known as Islamophobia) and has nothing else to prove on that particular score. It was the Right that put Hitler in power, not us.
Behind the Aegis
(53,987 posts)"Besides, the Left does fight against antisemitism and has nothing else to prove on that particular score. "
Where the FUCK did I say anything like this or ANYTHING that would allow you to "extrapolate" such an IGNORANT remark?!
"It was the Right that put Hitler in power, not us."
RED HERRING!
ETA: Your very first post and this sub-thread are nothing but insulting!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)of equating virtually any criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism. We've all read it.
I mentioned the left because Dershowitz reserves his attacks almost exclusively for the Left, and not just on the I/P issue. I still remember 1989, when Dersh accused the U.S. Left of defending what the Chinese government did to the Tienenman Square protesters, when the truth was that virtually everyone on the Left in this country denounced the Chinese government for what it did...even the People's World(aka..The Artist Formerly Known As The Daily Worker). Why does Dersh single out ONE side of the spectrum for almost all of his invective?
You simply never heard Dersh calling out Reagan or either Bush for anything...other than Bitburg, when he sort of had to.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)John Mearsheimer's blurb on the book written by Gilad Atzmon doesn't mean that he agreed with the content. Who or what Gilad Atzmon is, is completely irrelevant to what Mearsheimer blurbed. Alan Dershowitz seem to be unable to understand that, and is trying to make it look like Mearsheimer is promoting anti-semitism and blood libel.
As for that other guy, Ron Paul, the newletters in his name were probably not even written by him. Ron Paul's connection to them is not clear, and he has disavowed them. Ron Paul is taking contributions from holocaust deniers?
I can't see how antisemitism is becoming mainstream in academia, and I think that Dershowitz is screaming on the top of his lungs for no reason. He's interesting to read though.
shira
(30,109 posts)He wrote that it was "fascinating" and that "it should be read widely by Jews and non-Jews alike.” In fact, Mearsheimer insists Atzmon is not antisemitic.
Here's more...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/26/1020371/-John-Mearsheimer-does-his-best-to-prove-critics-right
Andrew Sullivan wrote "“I still haven’t read the book but the excerpts are so vile and the mind behind them so patently warped and hateful, I really don’t care to. Why would anyone blurb a book like this?”
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Have you read "The Israel Lobby?" It's the dual loyalty canard dressed up in academic regalia. If anything, Mearsheimer's work was the nose under the tent that Dershowitz is talking about.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)“for some reason Mearsheimer has decided to sacrifice his credibility by vouching for and endorsing one of the vilest Jew-haters on the planet, Gilad Atzmon.” I wouldn't define Gilad Atzmon as a vile Jew-hater at all, that term should be used for people like Geert Wilders and others who actually hate jews.
What Mearsheimer did was endorsing the book as a good read, he definitely didn't endorse the contents. I'm looking at at preview from amazon.com right now, ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/1846948754/ref=rdr_ext_tmb ), and I can see blurbs from Richard Falck, Professor James Petras, Karl Sabbagh, Professor William A Cook, Dr Samir Abed-Rabbo and Jeff Gates. I can't see the Mearsheimer blurb, it might be on the back, which isn't included in the preview. The blurbs are uncritical of the contents, which is strange if one considers the accusations, but I don't know what's in the book. I haven't read it yet.
John Mearsheimer has written a response to the allegations originally levelled by Jeffrey Goldberg which I think shows that the allegations are completely baseless.
Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg's latest smear
Source: Foreign Policy
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote -- a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side -- but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised.
The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer. Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg's sally, and he sent the following reply.
John Mearsheimer writes:
In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles. Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.
His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. Here is what I said in my blurb:
Read More: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/25/mearsheimer_responds_to_goldbergs_latest_smear
aranthus
(3,385 posts)A Mearsheimer Falsehood, and Other Reactions to Atzmon
John Mearsheimer writes on Stephen Walt's Foreign Policy blog:
"...Goldberg's assault on me steers clear of criticizing Atzmon's book, which is what I blurbed. In short, he falsely accuses me of lending support to a Holocaust denier and defender of Hitler on the basis of writings that I did not read and did not comment upon."
Dr. Mearsheimer is not telling the truth. Two of the three Atzmon quotations I published in this post appear in the very same Atzmon book praised by Mearsheimer. From Harry's Place:
[font color=blue]Of all the ridiculous points made by Walt and Mearsheimer in their latest Foreign Policy article, this sentence is the most ludicrous:
Goldberg's indictment of Atzmon does not rely on anything that he wrote in The Wandering Who?
Goldberg's piece quotes from Atzmon three times.
Two of the three quotes in Goldberg's article about Atzmon are also found in The Wandering Who:
- see page 175 for the "65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz" comment
- see page 51 for the Fagin/Shylock comment
Whatever next?[/font]
The full piece is at: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/a-mearsheimer-falsehood-and-other-reactions-to-atzmon/245711/
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Basically, Jeffrey goldberg's allegations are threefold. He's right when he says that two of the quotes are actually from Gilad Atzmon's book “The wandering who?”, but for the most part, the allegations have nothing to do with the book, they have to do with Gilad Atzmon's supposed antisemitic views, his other writings and the fact that Mearsheimer wrote “The Israel Lobby”.
The second bit from Jonathan Chait seems to be an example of begging the question, where he says it's wrong to defend Gilad Atzmon as a general thinker, because Mearsheimer defends Gilad Atzmon as a general thinker. The accusation is somehow the proof.
The last bit from Adam Holland puts forward the idea that being a self-hating jews always equals being anti-jewish. That interpretation is good for some, but I think there's a fundamental difference between those terms.
Gilad Atzmon explores Jewish identity from a critical perspective in his book, which is not antisemitism. The issue is complex, and I don't share Atzmon's glum thoughts on what Jewish identity really is. The book “The wandering Who?” seems to be an interesting read. I have read some snippets that supposedly prove that Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite, holocaust denier, Hitler apologist etc, but they are too short, and probably out of context.
I think that the actual problem some people have with Mearsheimer is with him co-writing “The Israel Lobby”, not his supposed endorsement of the supposedly antisemitic views of Gilad Atzmon.
shira
(30,109 posts)Did you actually read the article linked for you here...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/26/1020371/-John-Mearsheimer-does-his-best-to-prove-critics-right
Mearsheimer was defending this language from Atzmon...
"....Jewish texts tend to glaze over the fact that Hitler's March 28 1933, ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods, was an escalation in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership."
That's Nazi sympathizing, blaming of Jews for what happened to them 70 years ago.
Here's a little more from Atzmon...
We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously.... American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews do try to control the world, by proxy. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least.
=========
How is that America let its foreign policy be shaped by some ruthless Zionists? How come alleged American ‘free media’ failed to warn the American people of the enemy within? Money is probably the answer, it indeed makes the world go round, or at least the ‘American housing market’. Throughout the centuries, Jewish bankers bought for themselves some real reputations of backers and financers of wars and even one communist revolution.
And here's Holocaust denial from Atzmon...
...I am left puzzled here; if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war?
If?
Read the rest of the excerpts in that link.
If you don't think Atzmon is a batshit, loony fringe antisemite, there's no point going further. He's a stark raving mad David Duke clone. His views are indistinguisable from those of neo-Nazis today.
shira
(30,109 posts)Atzmon implies here, that Jews are not “people amongst other people”, so they must use apparently normal Jewish characters to try and gain sympathy and appear the same as everyone else. Atzmon can’t just say that Anne Frank’s Diary is a heart-breaking record of a tragic event, that should lead us to consider how we treat each other or perceive each other – or words to that effect. Rather, the diary itself is part of a Jewish plot – a deliberate, pre-meditated attempt for Jews to try and gain acceptance.
Walt and Mearsheimer protect Atzmon from accusations of antisemitism.
Atzmon continues this idea of Jews not being normal, or not fitting into society, when discussing David Rosenberg and Julia Bard, who are non-religious Jewish socialists. Atzmon writes in The Wandering Who [p. 72]:
“In spite of Julia and David’s dismissal of the Jewish faith, they still very much want to be part of the Jewish community. I wonder why? What is it that they need from the Jewish community? Why don’t they just ‘get on’ with their ‘socialist agenda’ and join the human family as ordinary people?
Atzmon is arguing that Jews are outside the human family.
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/26/mearsheimer-and-walt-defend-antisemite-who-thinks-hitler-will-be-proved-right/
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)at least in the parts that are available on the internet. (Link: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=028jkw0GVY4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+wandering+who&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qxUJT_D4POqaiQeL58TECQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20wandering%20who&f=false ) One would think that with all that smoke, there ought to be a fire. In this case, there is no fire. It's obvious to me that those who criticize the book either haven't read it, or have misunderstood what the book is about. There is no antisemitism in the book, and there are no ideas that are almost but just not enough to be antisemitic. Gilad Atzmon tries among other things to show that there's a strong connection between neoconservatism and right-wing zionism ,a charge that in no way is antisemitic in itself.
I don't agree with the central theme of the book, which is that Jewish self-image is largely built on fabricated myths. He's too assertive in his attempts to prove that certain stereotypes and symbols are perpetuated by some Jews in order to control the Jewish identity of other Jews. In a sense, this is a book that only a Jew could write without being racist, a racist statement in itself, I know. But in general, it's easier to explore stereotypes if you are the one being stereotyped. Mel Brooks got away with a lot of stuff that a non-Jew couldn't.
The use of snippets taken out of context to prove that Atzmon is an antisemite, doesn't work on me. He doesn't believe that Jews are different from other people in any way, he argues that Jewish exceptionalism is wrong, and explores the imagery that is used to promote it. I agree with Mearsheimer when he says that the book is fascinating and provocative, and I'll get myself a copy asap. The book seems to be well-written, and explores a subject which is taboo for some, but I read everything and anything as long as it's a good read.
I haven't had the time to read any of his blog, so it's still possible that Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite or eats babies or whatever, but I don't think so. The book is so solidly not antisemitic, that it's difficult to assume that his other writings hold fundamentally different views.
What we then end up with is the definition of what antisemitism is. I have obviously a different view of what constitutes antisemitism than some other people who include criticism of Jewish exceptionalism and Israel as being anti-semitic. A good example of this inclusive definition is the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism (Link: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf ), a definition that I think is fundamentally flawed for its attempt to blur the differences between Jews, Israel and zionism.
So according to me and John Mearsheimer, Gilad Atzmon is not an antisemite, and I agree with the endorsement of the book.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 02:09 PM - Edit history (2)
Greenstein...
Atzmon Caught Using BNP Material to Attack Opponents
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/12/atzmon-caught-using-bnp-material-to.html
Review - Atzmon - The Wandering Fool
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/12/review-wandering-who.html
=========
Only people on the very extreme fringes would defend someone as vile as Atzmon. You won't even find anyone here in I/P defending Atzmon.
I cite Greenstein because I figure you're more likely to take him seriously than any Zionist making the case.
Last, here's Dershowitz quoting many antisemitic examples from Atzmon and his latest book...
http://www.alandershowitz.com/gilad_atzmon.pdf
There's simply no question Atzmon is antisemitic. It's not really debatable. The neo-nazi David Duke crowd love him and consider him one of their own.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)and while I actually visited Atzmon's site ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/ ) for the first time in order to understand what the links were about, I found no evidence of any eaten babies or of antisemitism on his site, although he uses a much more peppery language on his site than in his book.
The first link ( Atzmon Caught Using BNP Material to Attack Opponents
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/12/atzmon-caught-using-bnp-material-to.html ) makes me very confused, and I actually cannot understand what the fuss is all about.
The second link ( Review - Atzmon - The Wandering Fool
http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2011/12/review-wandering-who.html ) is a very extensive and negative review of Gilad Atzmon's book. As usual with Atzmons critics, he jumpst to conclusions about the antisemitism charge. Just because Atzmon criticizes how he sees the Holocaust being misused for political purposes, doesn't mean he denies it happened. Also, the reviewer seems to have the notion that history is something that isn't supposed be discussed at all.
The third link ( http://www.alandershowitz.com/gilad_atzmon.pdf ) leads right into the central core of Dershowitz reasoning, and reveals insights into what led him to criticize Atzmon. This is large document of nine pages, and I'll prefer to be brief.
In spite of Dershowitz' cherry-picking of the “worst” quotes he fails to make his case, that they are evidence of antisemitism. In fact, the quotes show clearly that he's talking about Jews on the extreme right of zionism and their attempts to assume an identity as being mainstream. These attempts include derailing the memory of the holocaust and take control of US policies on Israel.
The article just goes on and on. After “proving” that Atzmon is antisemite, he tries to show that reasonable people have disawoved Atzmon, but he's still supported by Mearsheimer and David Duke, who seems to be a white supremacist (?). Apparently, Mearsheimer is actively supporting everything Atzmon ever wrote with the infamous blurb that recommended the book as a good read.
Dershowitz says that the book is part of a disturbing trend of “legitimizing antisemitic rhetoric on university campuses”, a trend that must be stopped. Finally, he gives as evidence of this trend, the fact that he was not allowed to talk at the University of Trondheim, Norway, but Gilad Atzmon was invited to talk.
---
Gilad Atzmon is not an antisemite, at least not in the context of the book he wrote and the various paragraphs presented. He does however, have a lot to say about jewish stereotypes and how they are used by some to promote certain aspects of right-wing zionism. I don't agree with him very much, he's too concentrated on the efforts of some people and groups to control the disourse on Israel and Jews. For example, I don't think that the Mossad have Jewish American agents that are ready to assist them in any way. The Mossad would have to decline that kind of help, even if offered. I don't think that the Holocaust is of much political use anymore, it may have been, but regardless of what Atzmon says, there's no country in the world willing to give Israel a break due to it. And even if there were neocons that controlled US foreign policy, and played the Great Game with countries, they are out now, and have little control on US policy on Israel. His insistence on things like these, that do occur, but are not commonplace, is not antisemitism, only exaggerations.
The new Jewish religion he's talking about is the supposed merger of Zionism and neoconservatism. To criticize aspects of zionism is only antisemitic if the terms “Jews” and “Zionism” are conflated, something which seems to a recurring feature of some, if not most of Gilad Atzmon's critics.
It's weird, me defending the ideas of a guy I don't even agree with.
shira
(30,109 posts)Here are a few more of his quotes for you to chew on. I'm astounded that you wouldn't find any of the following to be hate speech....
=====================
"I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act.'"
"It is about time we internalise the fact that Israel and Zionism are the ultimate Evil with no comparison."
"To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook."
""Throughout the centuries, Jewish bankers bought for themselves some real reputations of backers and financers of wars, and even one communist revolution. Though rich Jews had been happily financing wars using their assets, Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, found a far more sophisticated way to finance the wars perpetrated by his ideological brothers Libby and Wolfowitz."
" The 'Elders of Zion' syndrome: Zionists complain that Jews continue to be associated with a conspiracy to rule the world via political lobbies, media and money. Is the suggestion of conspiracy really an empty accusation?
The following list is presented with pride in several Jewish American websites.
Jews in Bush's Administration (a list of some 30 names follows¦)
Let me assure you, in Clinton's administration the situation was even worse. Even though the Jews only make up 1.9 per cent of the country's population, an astounding 56 per cent of Clinton's appointees were Jews. A coincidence? I don't think so."
"I would suggest that perhaps we should face it once and for all: the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus who, by the way, was himself a Palestinian Jew....Why is it that the Jews who repeatedly demand that the Christian world should apologise for its involvement in previous persecutions, have never thought that it is about time that they apologised for killing Jesus?"
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Khalid Amayreh
This is a Palestinian journalist living in the West Bank. His incendiary writings are OTT, and I consider his writings hate speech in the “kill the Jews” category.
Some of his writings:
THE OUTLAWS OF THE MIDDLE EAST (intifada-palestine.com)
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/01/the-outlaws-of-the-middle-east-by-khalid-amayreh/
Why I hate America ? (ptimes.org)
http://www.ptimes.org/Main/default.aspx?_ContentType=ART&_ContentID=11037910-8168-43bd-9478-75185b7956ff
Zionists: We hate you because you are evil, not because you are Jewish (thepeoplesvoice.org)
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/04/02/zionists-we-hate-you-because-you-are-evi
The Israeli Jewish War on Islam in Palestine (aljazeera.info)
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/December/20%20o/The%20Israeli%20Jewish%20War%20on%20Islam%20in%20Palestine%20By%20Khalid%20Amayreh.htm
Geert Wilders
He's a Dutch Nationalist politician who is very vocal in his criticism of Islam and a proponent of the Eurabia theory in his controversial film “Fitna”. His racist stance, together with the fact that he considers jews to be so un-Dutch that they should emigrate, makes him an antisemite.
Unholy alliance: Israel's right and Europe's anti-Semites (Haaretz)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/unholy-alliance-israel-s-right-and-europe-s-anti-semites-1.393941
Top Dutch politician: Jews should emigrate to Israel or U.S.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/top-dutch-politician-jews-should-emigrate-to-israel-or-u-s-1.329313
Ahmed Rami
This is the man behind “Radio Islam”, an antisemitic hate site on the internet. He's Swedish and was involved in compiling a Swedish Jew list a few years back. He's the classic antisemite who openly hates jews in the nazi sense. I'm not providing a link to his site, it's too offensive.
Radio Islam (wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Islam
Poisoning the Web: Hatred Online (The Antidefamation League)
http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/rami.asp
Unfortunately, Karma has chosen to give me the flu, so I'm barely hobbling along. I may be slow in responding to the rest.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)South Park
This animated TV-series is intentionally very politically incorrect in many ways, not only for Cartman's obvious hatred of Jews. Actually the show makes fun of antisemitism, and the imagery is therefore ok with me.
World Conference against Racism 2001, also known as “Durban I”
The conference has been trying to raise the spectre of Israeli apartheid, but it's not connecting anything Jewish to racism, or saying anything negative about Jews.
Richard Goldstone and the so called “Goldstone Report”
Richard Goldstone went to Gaza and co-wrote a report of his findings. Some negative things in that report criticize Israel, but there is nothing in that report that criticize anything Jewish.
Borat
Sacha Baron Cohen is portraying Borat Sagdiyev, a journalist from Kazakhstan who is crude, antisemitic and generally a bigot. His accent is funny. The liberal use of antisemitic stereotypes is for satirical purposes only, and portrays antisemites and bigots as knuckle-walkers.
Gilad Atzmon's “The wandering who?”
In his book “The wandering who?”, Atzmon explores some taboo aspects of Jewish identity, and he's contrasting Nazi imagery with what he alleges is Jewish bigotry based on that very imagery. He tries to show that certain jewish rightwing groups are connected to neoconservatism, and that they have undue influence over US politics. While I don't agree with him, the Nazi imagery is used to expose alleged bigotry, not to promote negative stereotypes about jews.
I hope that you're beginning to see a pattern. I have no problem with antisemitic stereotypes in the right context, nor do I think that criticism of Jews is antisemitism, unless the criticism is derived from a belief in Jewish stereotypes or is used to enforce them.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jewish Activists Stunned by Hostility, Anti-Semitism at Durban Conference
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=2279
On the grounds of the U.N. conference itself, the Arab Lawyers Union distributed pamphlets filled with grotesque caricatures of hook-nosed Jews depicted as Nazis, spearing Palestinian children, dripping blood from their fangs, with missiles bulging from their eyes or with pots of money nearby. Attempts to have the group's U.N. accreditation revoked were refused.
Under the tent where the final NGO declaration was approved over the weekend -- a document that indicts Israel as a "racist, apartheid state" guilty of genocide and ethnic cleansing -- fliers were found with a photo of Hitler and the following question: "What if Hitler had won? There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed."
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)quoting racist Elie Wiesel. The UN World Conference against Racism was not an antisemitic endeavur, although some countries like Iran and Syria wanted to single out Israel for being racist, they didn't succeed. Although the article seems to be unaware of which conference it was covering, it seems as if it actually was covering another NGO Forum that was also held in Durban at approximately the same time. This forum was truly an antisemitic hatefest, but it wasn't connected to the UN conference.
Here's a snippet from Wikipedia on the issue:
source: Wikipedia (edit for clarity)
(snip)
The NGO Forum Declaration
Separate from the actual Conference itself was an NGO Forum, held in the nearby Kingsmead Stadium in Durban, that ran from 2001-08-28 to 2001-09-01. This was a forum of 3,000 NGOs, attended by 8,000 representatives. It, too adopted a Declaration. However, this was not an official document of the WCAR and was not issued as such.
The Forum's proceedings were highly disorganized, with several NGO delegates walking out of the Forum, to the jeers of other delegates, and ending in discord; and the resultant declaration had 62 paragraphs of introduction, followed by a document that appeared to commentators as being the result of every lobby putting its pet aversions in. It described Israel as a "racist, apartheid state" that was guilty of "racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing". The document was not intended to be presented to the Conference, although a copy of it was intended to be handed over, as a symbolic gesture, to the Conference secretary-general, Mary Robinson, at the conclusion of the Forum. Ms Robinson refused to accept the document, citing concerns over its language. In a later interview she said of the whole conference that "there was horrible anti-Semitism present — particularly in some of the NGO discussions. A number people said they've never been so hurt or so harassed or been so blatantly faced with an anti-Semitism." The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Critics described the description of Israel as apartheid as the "Durban Strategy". They claim that this comparison was made with the intention of causing and encouraging divestment from and boycott of Israel.
The NGO Forum was attended by U.S. NGOs, with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. The Ford Foundation provided USD10 million in support to the WCAR and the NGO Forum. These NGOs provided research assistance at the Forum and helped to develop declarations and resolutions that dealt with the issue of compensation for slavery.
(snip)
Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001
shira
(30,109 posts)The Arab Lawyers Union distributed a book at this conference that superimposed a swastika over the Star of David. Protesters carried signs outside the conference that asked what would have happened if Hitler had won World War II. One benefit the sign reported was that "THERE WOULD BE NO ISRAEL AND NO PALESTINIAN'S BLOOD SHED." Palestinian extremists at the conference chanted "We will redeem Palestine through blood and fire."
In response to the vicious atmosphere at the conference — which she organized — Mary Robinson declared "I am a Jew" and condemned the anti-Semitism being expressed at the events; but by then it was too late and the damage had been done. The conference's delegates passed a resolution accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing at the behest of Israel's enemies in the Middle East.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=1706
All the above can be easily verified using a Google search engine. So rather than attack CAMERA, you may want to question the actual facts. If you can't find anything factually inaccurate WRT the above, then concede the point. If you can't find anything antisemitic with any of the above, you don't know what antisemitism is, or don't care to know.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)However, all these alleged events took place at another NGO Forum taking place in the same city at almost the same time. They didn't happen at the UN Durban conference. CAMERA is lying when they knowingly claim that the events of the antisemitic hatefest (a wording which is no exaggeration) that was the NGO Forum, actually happened at the UN conference. CAMERA is also trying to connect the regional preparatory meeting Iran ( http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/deb8e5ad2c58d0fac1256a530043a1a3/$FILE/G0112596.pdf ) to the NGO Forum, an allegation that is untrue.
Unfortunately, most pro-Israel sources are unable to differentiate fully between the two events for reasons unknown. I did find a reference to the NGO Forum at NGO Monitor (!), which even if slighty incorrect, manages to make this distinction.
Source: NGO Monitor
(snip)
A regional conference in Tehran, intended to produce a composite Declaration against Racism and a Plan of Action, preceded the conference. Israel, along with Jewish NGOs, were excluded and, in their absence, Israel was accused of committing holocausts and being anti-Semitic. There was no public condemnation of the exclusion of Israel or the Jewish groups by any of the international NGOs. During the World Conference, large numbers of NGOs organized a parallel NGO Forum (sometimes confused with the Conference) that, in turn, succeeded in overshadowing the formal proceedings. This was due to the large amount of media attention the NGOs were able to generate. The NGO Forum produced what is known as "The NGO Declaration," which, while not an official conference document, assumed a high international profile and was signed by groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.(snip)
Read more: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?operation=print&id=82
Basically, I agree with the described events being antisemitism, but I disagree with the claim that the were part of the UN conference, instead claiming that they happened at the NGO Forum.
shira
(30,109 posts)...at the conference she presided over.
Why would she say that about something totally unconnected to the UN?
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)The UN conference started on August 31, the day after Mary Robinson said “I am a Jew”. The NGO Forum was from August 28 to September 1, according to Wikipedia. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001 ).
She had a right to be upset over what was going on at the NGO Forum.
Source: NGO Monitor
Herb Keinon, Janine Zacharia
August 30, 2001
The Jerusalem Post
Waving a book of anti-Semitic cartoons distributed at the anti-racism conference in Durban, UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson - in a dramatic act of identification with the Jews vilified in the pamphlet - declared "I am a Jew" at an NGO dinner there Wednesday night.
Shimon Samuels, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris, said that after he showed Robinson the booklet, she stood up, waved it and said, "This conference is aimed at achieving human dignity. My husband is a cartoonist, I love political cartoons, but when I see the racism in this cartoon booklet, of the Arab Lawyers' Union, I must say that I am a Jew - for those victims are hurting. I know that you people will not understand easily, but you are my friends, so I tell you that I am a Jew, and I will not accept this fractiousness to torpedo the conference."
Read more: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1025
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Here are a couple of things he's written:
"American Jewry makes any debate on whether the 'Protocols of the elder of Zion' are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world.. So far they are doing pretty well for themselves at least."
and worse@
"To regard Hitler as the ultimate evil is nothing but surrendering to the Zio-centric discourse. To regard Hitler as the wickedest man and the Third Reich as the embodiment of evilness is to let Israel off the hook."
Here are some comments on him by Tony Greenstein, a very pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist British Jew:
http://www.sue.be/pal/Tony_G1.html
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I was just listening to a talk that Gilad Atzmon gave at Exeter University, where he compared Israel to Nazi Germany. That's sort of a red line for me.
Source: http://www.gilad.co.uk/
(Snip)
“Very interesting Q&A session-elaborating on peace, shalom, Holocaust, pre traumatic stress disorder, the Holocaust, Jewish Marxistss & Jewish anti Zionist, Marxism, Israel and Zionism being Nazi-like ideolgies, Khazar and much more.”
Link: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/exeter-university-gilad-atzmon-the-wandering-who-and-where.html
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I quite agree that he is not an anti-semite, but he is not a "reliable narrator" either.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)what a long strange trip its been indeed to get to this 'conclusion'
but now at least you have the comfort of agreeing with your own OP 
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)that made me change my position on Atzmon somewhat. The links and the quotes didn't do anything for me.
But I'm not prepared to put on the dunce cap and admit that Dershowitz was right just yet...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)a dunce cap but one thing Dersh has never left if you check the old DU archives he gets posted here quite regularly
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Although he may not espouse their religious beliefs, his racism endears him to the likes of Stormfront. Ron Pauls' recent denials are the typical machinations of a politician caught in an uncomfortable truth.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)and as such, he probably associates with a lot of strange people holding strange views. It's not farfetched to assume that he didn't have full control of what was being written in his name. That's more a warning signal that Ron Paul is an amateur ideologue who doesn't know what's going on, rather than the assumption he's a racist. His political ideas are crazy enough to be refuted on their on merits, no racist smear is needed to show that he's unsuitable for the Presidency.
Libertarians have no problem associating with racists, according to them everybody is entitled to their own views, even when they cause damage to others.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I remember him saying some really stinky stuff about Goldstone that had to do with the Protocols and what sort of Jew Dershy thought he was, etc. I should go and dig in the archives for it when I've got some time...
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)He's the king of mudslinging, and he can outconfuse anyone.
Dershowitz vs Goldstone you say? Sounds interesting...
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Though I did manage to get through 'The Case For Israel' even though I had to stop at times and let the laughing subside...
I tracked down the article I was remembering where he severed his friendship with Goldstone and conjured up the Protocols, amongst other things:
'In an interview with Army Radio, Dershowitz said he is appalled by the report and can't fathom how it could have been written by a Jew. He said it is as if a Jew would have written the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that the jurist is using the fact that his last name is 'Goldstone' to substantiate the report's defamation against the Jewish people.'
http://www.haaretz.com/news/dershowitz-goldstone-is-a-traitor-to-the-jewish-people-1.265833
shira
(30,109 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I didn't realise there were exceptions when it came to focusing on someone because they're Jewish, or saying things about their last name weren't antisemitic. I'll keep what you said in mind if I see you popping up in future threads saying that those things are indeed antisemitic 
shira
(30,109 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)is to prove that he never said those things, which could be problematic with a taped radio interview.
The statements are antisemitic because they convey a belief that Jews are fundamentally different from other people, something which make them into the Jewish People, and any Jew who dares criticize the Jewish People is a Traitor.
This is actually an interesting subject. How is it that some critics of alleged antisemitism are actually a type of antisemites themselves?
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)
aranthus
(3,385 posts)"The statements are antisemitic because they convey a belief that Jews are fundamentally different from other people, something which make them into the Jewish People, and any Jew who dares criticize the Jewish People is a Traitor."
[font color=blue]So to believe in a Jewish people is to be antisemitic? Does that mean that it is anti-French to believe in a French people? In that case the bigest haters of Blacks must be Blacks; the biggest Islamophobes are Muslims, etc, ad stupiditum. I know of no believing Jew who would accept your definition. It's nonsense.
Second, of course Jews are fundamtentally different from other people. They believe different things. The Japanese are fundamentally different from other people. So are the Arabs, Russians and everyone else. What do you think peoplehood is if not a set of fundamental differences from other peoples? Just because one believes that Jews are different doesn't mean that one is hostile to them. It is that hostility to another people (blatant in Atzmon's writings and completely non-existent in Dershowitz), which is the essence of antisemitism or hatred of any other people.
Third, Dershowitz is not calling Goldstone a traitor merely for criticizing the Jewish people, in large part because Goldstone didn't merely criticize the Jewish people. He took part in a purposefully unfair attack on the Jewish state The primary complaint he and I have with Goldstone is that the Judge allowed himself to be used as the Jewish face of one more anti-Israel UN hatchet job. As if lying about the Jewish state is somehow acceptable if the lies are put together by a committee headed by a Jew. Nowhere does Dershowitz exhibit hostility to Goldstone because he is a Jew. He criticizes what Goldstone did, so the critique is personal not ethnic.
Your position is neither morally nor intellectually tenable.[/font]
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)I implied the mistaken idea of a people having a manifest destiny, and therefore being in pursuit of a sacred goal. I didn't imply that peoples don't exist, or that their members may have features that define them, like language or religion.
However, I do have a problem with the idea of “peoplehood'. It confers the notion of special characteristics to its members, while denying these characteristics to everyone else. It's mostly blatantly racist when used in the negative, like “all people from Mordor are evil” or “the southron are easily fooled”, but the use of positive stereotypes are bad (but not so easily identified as such) because they convey a sense of characteristics that may not be distributed in that particular way. For example the notion that “Gondorians are noble” or “Rohirrim are brave” can give the false impression that this is always the case.
And I still think that Dershowitz is displaying antisemitism in his remarks about Goldstone. There is too much supposition that Israel and Jewish is the same in his statements, and if the context would be changed slightly, they could be made to infer that “All Jews always defend Israel, or at least ought to do so”, which I would classify as an antisemitic remark.
shira
(30,109 posts)And I'm certain the vast majority of Jews would have no problem with that statement.
Don't believe me?
Poll other Jews here to see what they think.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I'll take yr comments on board and make sure I remind you that you said such things weren't antisemitic if I ever see you popping up in future doing a complete about face and insisting they are. Got a problem with that?
on edit: the 'you don't get to decide.' line sent me back to one of yr last posts at DU2 where you were deciding what was bigoted when it came to Muslims. Sorry, I didn't realise you were a Muslim!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=374029&mesg_id=375298
shira
(30,109 posts)You're also wrong about Islamophobia too.
Muslims know the difference b/w criticism of Muslims and criticism of Islamists, even if you don't.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)And I'm certain the vast majority of Muslims would think that stuff was anti-Muslim.
Don't believe me?
Poll other Muslims here to see what they think.
See, Shira. It works both ways...
shira
(30,109 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)How does anything he say exhibit hostility to to Goldstone because he's a Jew? It doesnt'. Dershowitz is angry with Goldstone for allowing his Jewishness to be used to legitimize defamation of the Jewish state. That critique isn't at all antisemitic. By the way, I disagree with shira that only Jews get to decide what antisemitism is. There has to be a standard for determining what is hatefulness to a group of people. I suspect that standard is going to pretty much universal in that it could be applied to any group. But attacking someone for what they did as opposed to their group identity isn't group hatefulness at all. Dershowitz isn't an antisemite.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)None of the IDF actions that Goldstone condemned were required to preserve Israel's survival. The "existential crisis" meme is a myth.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)the baseline justification for taking military action the very survival of your state?
And no, criticism of Israeli security policy does not equal "defamation of the Jewish state." But unwarranted criticism formed via a biased procedure designed to maximize the vilification of Israel does.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is what hardline "pro-Israel" types keep insisting is what is in question...it's why the Israeli Right invented the "existential crisis" meme.
It goes to the root of the "no choice" maxim that has been used to justify Israeli military policies since the creation of the state.
So the claim that Israel is fighting to survive is constantly used in hasbara, and by extension is applied to almost everything the IDF does.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Just because Israeli politicians have argued that their survival was at stake in past wars (as indeed it often was), does not mean that every altercation Israel will ever be involved in can accurately be described that way. And the fact that Israel's existence was not at stake re: it's decision to invade Gaza doesn't mean that Israel's existence was NOT at stake during past incidents.
is what hardline "pro-Israel" types keep insisting is what is in question
Riiight. So did any insist that survival was at stake regarding Cast Lead? Or is it merely a straw man you've set up here?
None of the IDF actions that Goldstone condemned were required to preserve Israel's survival. The "existential crisis" meme is a myth.
Those two sentences you wrote have absolutely no connection whatsoever. Do you earnestly believe that the first proves the second?
it's why the Israeli Right invented the "existential crisis" meme.
So the Israeli right invented the "meme" that Arab and Muslim states are continually seeking Israel's destruction? How'd they get the Arab states to play along so well?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)whether Israel exists or not. While they may not recognize it diplomatically, a lot of them aren't really doing much of anything to attack it. Morocco and Algeria more or less leave the whole thing alone, as does Saudi Arabia. There are peace deals with Egypt AND Jordan. So the "unrelenting Arab campaign" is pretty much a myth these days.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)that Goldstone wasn't so roundly attacked merely because he "criticized Israel's security policy" right?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He was attacked for breaking with the official line.
Those who attacked him did so because they had this arrogant notion that everybody in the world who identifies as Jewish is obligated to
publicly defend everything the Israeli government ever does in the name of "security" or "self-defense", as if the utterance of those words
by any Israeli prime minister or general should be enough to automatically and permanently silence any debate on any question.
All Goldstone did was reject that, and dare to treat the Israeli government with the same objectivity he would have extended to any
OTHER state on the planet whose military's actions he was being asked to investigate. All he did, in other words, was act as a judge
was supposed to act, rather than as a closet defense counsel. This was neither dishonorable NOR evil.
And just for this, those assholes in South Africa actually tried to block him by force from attending his own grandson's Bar Mitzvah,
something that should never be done to any grandparent.
Goldstone did not go into his investigation with the pre-determined purpose of making Israel look bad. He was just looking for the
facts. He didn't lie. He didn't act with malice aforethought.
And he wasn't responsible for what others might do with his findings.
The most you could say about Goldstone's post-report actions was that he realized he didn't have full proof for one of the charges.
That doesn't mean he exonerated the IDF from all major wrongdoing in Gaza. He only changed his findings on one point, and even then
all he did was to say he didn't have absolutely complete proof. That did not equal an aquittal.
Goldstone committed no crime and deserved no hatred.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Show me some examples of what you're talking about. Every single critique of him I have seen focused on the fact that he participated in a biased process that sought strictly to demonize Israel.
But by all means show me where people attacked him because they think that all Jews have to defend everything Israel does.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)that anyone who claims to be "pro-Israel" has an obligation to refuse to participate in anything the UN does regarding the I/P issue. All the UN is guilty of is not taking Israel's side...and really, why SHOULD it? Israel is just another country, and is not automatically entitled to the special consideration its apologists demand.
Those who attacked Goldstone for participating in the commission he led would have automatically attacked ANY investigation that didn't promise to exonerate the IDF from the start.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)That is ALL SO untrue!!!
The issue was NEVER that the UN refused to grant Israel special consideration or that Israel wasn't exonerated from the start. NO CRITIC... NONE OF THEM ever said such a thing.
Israel is just another country, and is not automatically entitled to the special consideration its apologists demand.
This sentence here is a perfect example of why I hate (truly hate) certain right wing politicians and journalists, especially WRT civil rights, gay rights, any kind of guaranteed equality regarding rights. Their argument against it is always the same. Rush Limbaugh consistently denigrates the idea of a law to codify and enforce "equal right for gay people" based on the argument that any law granting a group equal rights is really giving them "special rights" above what non-minorities are guaranteed.
Your argument mirrors that one perfectly. Critics of the Goldstone Report (and its original Mandate at the very start of the process), rejected how Israel alone was singled out for investigation, how that investigation specifically forbade investigating any aspects of the war except Israel's possible violations of Palestinian Human Rights. As such, all of the evidence the team was allowed to see was tailored to fit the terms of the mandate. A few team members voiced political opinions implying Israel's guilt before the investigation even started. One made comments to the Times insisting that Israel's actions against Hamas attacks were acts of "aggression not self-defense" and "contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law." Also before the investigation had begun.
All the UN is guilty of is not taking Israel's side
...AND exhibiting a huge bias in any task involving Israel, not just creating anti-semitic propaganda designed to vilify Israel but insisting that Israel HELP the team tasked with that project.
If a city has laws that apply to every race equally, yet decides one day that they're only going to enforce the law when it is broken by a black person, are the city's actions racist? See, I think they are. But someone who subscribes to your ideology as described here would say, "The city is being ridiculed merely for refusing to give black people special consideration. The people attacking the city would have done so under any circumstance except the automatic acquittal of any black person who is arrested."
The report itself was biased and one-sided. It was rife with factual errors about International Law. It only included incidents perpetrated by Israel, making it impossible to consider the events within any kind of historical context. It's just a list of "atrocities" that Israel inflicted on the Palestinian people, seemingly without any conceivable reason.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:03 AM - Edit history (2)
opponents of LGBT rights want gay people to stop being gay. The purpose of the investigation was NOT to stop Israel being Israel. And there's no chance that Israel will stop existing anyway. No country that has the fourth-largest war machine on the planet can seriously claim to be endanger of being wiped out.
Also, it assumes that the hostility other Arab countries and, in different ways, the Palestinians, have demonstrated towards Israel can be likened to a form of bigotry...the old right-wing Likudnik meme that the only reason any of those forces didn't instantly get along with and instantly accept Israel was antisemitism, which implies that they'd all have been perfectly fine with any new country formed on any OTHER premise coming into existence where Israel did at that time-and it totally leaves out (for the other Arab countries) the natural resistance those states would have had to any state coming in and presenting itself(as Israel did)as a bastion of European culture and values, and as an outpost of European and American strategic and influence in a region that was just emerging from European colonial shackles or(as far as the Palestinians go) the massive population displacements caused by the events of 1948 and 1967)- it's part of the whole, delusional, denialist viewpoint on the Middle East and the I/P dispute that pretends that Israel is blameless and every other country there, as well as the Palestinians, are simply moustache-twirling villains who have no real grievances or concerns at all.
Yes, there was and is antisemitism in this region(although there was never anything even remotely comparable to the Inquisition, the Tsars and Hitler) and yes, the Palestinians and the other Arab countries, which did not always act in accord with each other, have made some horrid mistakes...but antisemitism was never the sole or even necessarily the main point in the dispute(indeed, Egypt and Jordan have just as much antisemitism being expressed in their societies as did Libya under Qadaffi, or in Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli government and its most inflexible apologists never call out those states on that). It's much more complicated than that, and it must be admitted that there's equal responsibility on all sides.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Nothing you wrote, none of it, has anything to do with my (accurate and legitimate), criticism of your argument. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you merely misunderstood it as opposed to any of the less flattering alternatives.
The conservative right in America has consistently opposed ALL forms of equal rights laws based on their assertion that "equal rights" are really "special, expanded rights" beyond what an average, white, Christian male could expect; and are thus unfair and actually discriminatory towards that white, Christian male I mentioned.
Some weirdos might focus on "healing" them or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about here though, I am exclusively discussing the Right-Wing's argument against implementing a federal (or any state) gay equal rights law. This is the exact same argument it offered against every other equal rights law previously debated. And it is the same argument you are offering in support of Goldstone's Report, which expressly investigated Israel's actions alone, absent of context, and refused to consider: terrorism initiated by Hamas, possible War crimes committed by Hamas and any evidence that did not directly support the "Israel committed war crimes and broke every treaty under the sun" narrative. In fact, any evidence that may have mitigated even the EXTENT of Israel's supposed crimes was disqualified as being outside of the Mandate's provision.
When Israel asks for equal treatment you reply that equal treatment is special treatment; that despite what it may have expected, Israel isn't entitled to any special perks, thus making its request for equality under the law, appear to be a request to excuse it from law-following entirely, because apparently Israel thinks they're better than everyone else.
----
I have no idea what the point of the second part of your post is supposed to be. It has absolutely nothing to do with what i wrote, which I will reiterate here, hopefully in a more articulate manner.
The key issue with the Goldstone report was not merely that it was executed in a biased, discriminatory way. The problems started right away, with the Mandate's methodology and goals themselves. The Resolution was posited by the UNHRC (which is notoriously fixated on villainizing Israel), and decided "to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission."
Do you understand how this Mandate would produce a document heavily skewed against Israel while ignoring not only the crimes that Hamas committed DURING the war but also the key attacks that Haas perpetrated against Israeli civilians over a period of years, which eventually CAUSED the war.
I am criticizing the UN's conduct in their development of a mandate intentionally designed to leave the reader with a heavily edited product that reflects a pre-determined narrative, probably in the hopes of growing negative opinions against Israel in the international community and foreign press. A mandate that reflected a genuine interest in truth and justice would have made a few distinctive changes, such as having the team to ask questions about Hamas' actions, allowing them to build an accurate understanding of what actually occurred, information generally bought of as critical when one is determining if such serious, criminal charges can/should be brought.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Recent revelations about the Nixon tapes reveal vile antisemitism by both Nixon and Kissinger; and I think that's just confirming what's already known about them. Bush the First's secretary of state Baker is notorious for his statement 'Fuck the Jews; they don't vote for us anyway!'
When I was a student in the 80s there were periodic scandals about English undergraduates thinking it was funny to dress up as Nazis/ give Nazi salutes/ etc. - and it still happens. Especially, probably, among the more upper-class types. Recently a Tory MP and his pals got into trouble over a Nazi themed party when on holiday in France. Not all of this may reflect explicit antisemitism - some is plain ignorance -but it often comes to the same thing.
George Orwell wrote a very interesting essay on 'Antisemitism in Britain' in the 40s; some of it would be as valid today. In fact, antisemitism is not huge in Britain, though big enough to be a problem. Probably similar to America. Some countries in Europe are much more antisemitic. In Spain, antisemitism is very common, though often in a relatively mild form; in Poland and Hungary, even commoner, and far less mild. This is perhaps more *noticeable* since they became part of the EU, but it's always been a big problem.
Gilad Atzmon, admittedly, is extreme. He is not the only Jewish antisemite ever (cf Kissinger above, for example); but he is particularly outrageous about it. I suspect it may have originated as an attention-grab ('what can I say that will shock my relatives the most?'); but it is extremely nasty, however it started.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Nixon, Baker and Kissinger kept their beliefs private, because they were considered ugly. They didn't write whole books about it. Now academics, public figures, and media types are starting to say in public what they wouldn't have a decade ago.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Equally, so do all other forms of bigotry. All of them are just as odious and just as much a threat. All decent people oppose antisemitism. The problem comes in when the implication is made, over and over again, that antisemitism is the ONLY form of prejudice or hatred that anyone should care about.
Bigotry against LGBT people, against people of color, against women, against the indigenous, all of these are just as unacceptable and just as much of a priority for anti-bigotry activism as is antisemitism. There's no reason for the fight against antisemitism, necessary as it is, to be privileged above the fight against all other forms of hatred.
To do that is to imply, essentially, that Hitler would have been a great guy if only he'd let it go at trying to exterminate the leftists, the gays, the Roma and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)When has anyone ever suggested that "antisemitism is the ONLY form of prejudice or hatred that anyone should care about..."
MUCH LESS done so over and over again?
And certainly no one has suggested that it would be just fine if all the blacks, gays, indigenous folks, Indians, Chinese, Gypsies and women were wiped out in an incident of mass genocide.
What the hell are you talking about?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)as if antisemitism matters and none of the other forms of bigotry do.
So has the ADL.
This has to stop.
All forms of bigotry are equally wrong and fighting them all is of equal priority.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)That's because the ADL and groups like it exist specifically to address Jewish issues. Are you even serious with this?
It's like criticizing the Negro College Fund because it doesn't give aid to Japanese people. That doesn't mean that the NCF thinks that black issues are more important than others. It's just that they happen to work on this particular issue. How come we never see Gay Men's Health Crisis fighting to protect the pygmy owls from overzealous land development? Do they think that being gay is more important than the PLANET?! No. It's just not what they do. My father taught high school biology. Does it mean that he thought Physics was a lesser science because he spent ALL his time teaching Bio?
The problem comes in when the implication is made, over and over again, that antisemitism is the ONLY form of prejudice or hatred that anyone should care about.
So let me get this straight. You think that unless you are allocating equal time to fighting each and every specific form of bigotry that exists in the world then you are implying, over and over again, that they aren't important and everyone should ignore them? To actively fight against any one specific form of discrimination is to say that all other discrimination doesn't matter? And it HAS to STOP!?
By fighting against ALL bigotry ALL at the SAME time!
Ummmm... WOW! I think that's the weirdest thing I've ever read on this board. I don't know what to say. Good luck, I guess.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But you don't put the need to fight one type of hatred ABOVE the need to fight all other kinds.
The other forms of bigotry are just as widespread, just as virulent, and just as necessary to fight against urgently as antisemitism is. Dershowitz never acknowledges that-and the ADL, while of course it would focus on antisemitism, never does either. Both act as if antisemitism is the only form of bigotry that matters.
And both act as if the victims of antisemitism have suffered more than the victims of any other sort of prejudice-and, while they have suffered greatly, this also isn't true. The victims of racism against blacks, against indigenous people, against gays and lesbians, against women, have all suffered, in different ways, just as much. This is why all forms of hatred need to be fought together and why the suffering of any one group of hate victims must not be privileged above the suffering of the others.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Well, I'm not sure what to tell you here. This issue is very much your own, it is not a criticism I have ever heard before, nor does it even really make any sense. Neither Dershowitz nor Foxman have ever made any kind of statement indicating that they place a higher value on Jewish suffering than the suffering of others. The fact that they have not made a very specific (and quite absurd), statement indicating that they don't think anti-semitism is more important than other kinds of bigotry is not an indication that they hold the opposite to be true. To judge individuals not just by any actions they took, but also by EVERY action they did NOT take, (assuming they must support the opposite), is inherently mindless.
To abide by these rules is to court disaster by attempting any good deed. If I donate $10 to Hadassah does that mean I value Jewish charities over all others, thus proving myself to be a racist at heart? Of course not. That's fucking retarded. People can, and should(!), be able to devote themselves to a single issue that they feel a personal connection to without fearing from charges of elitism or racism.
That said, BOTH Dershowitz and the ADL HAVE voiced their commitment to combating discrimination in every form.
The ADL's stated purpose is: "to fight "Anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry (in the United States) and abroad, combat international terrorism, probe the roots of hatred, advocate before the United States Congress, come to the aid of victims of bigotry, develop educational programs, and serve as a public resource for government, media, law enforcement, and the public, all towards the goal of countering and reducing hatred."
Its charter says: The stated purpose of the ADL is to fight "Anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry (in the United States) and abroad, combat international terrorism, probe the roots of hatred, advocate before the United States Congress, come to the aid of victims of bigotry, develop educational programs, and serve as a public resource for government, media, law enforcement, and the public, all towards the goal of countering and reducing hatred."
In 1997, the National Center for Black-Jewish Relations of Dillard University, a historically black university in New Orleans awarded the director of the ADL, Abraham H. Foxman, with the first Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. – Donald R. Mintz Freedom and Justice Award.
ADL publications on condemning bigotry towards Arabs, Muslims, Blacks and members of other minorities have often been used in synagogue adult education programs, and as part of Jewish-Christian and Jewish-Muslim inter-faith dialogue.
----------
Dershowitz has been described by Newsweek as America's "most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights."[1] He was named a Guggenheim Fellow in 1979, and in 1983 received the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award from the Anti-Defamation League for his work on civil rights.
In public debates, Dershowitz commonly argues against censorship of pornography on First Amendment grounds, and maintains that consumption of pornography is not harmful.
Dershowitz is one of a number of scholars at Harvard Law School who have expressed their support for limited animal rights. In his Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights, he writes that, in order to avoid human beings treating each other the way we treat animals, we have made what he calls the "somewhat arbitrary decision" to single out our own species for different and better treatment. "Does this subject us to the charge of speciesism? Of course it does, and we cannot justify it, except by the fact that in the world in which we live, humans make the rules. That reality imposes on us a special responsibility to be fair and compassionate to those on whom we impose our rules. Hence the argument for animal rights."
---------
So, I tried to figure out why you are even trying to make this clumsy, ridiculous argument and the only thing I could come up with is that you were planning on drumming up support for this argument, (somehow, perhaps right after you sent it you got extremely lucky and a solar flare melted our brains, making it sound like a reasonable critique of Dershowitz and Foxman instead of leaving me feeling as though I had just glimpsed into the maw of pure madness.) Anyway, after you had us on board this leaky, rickety ship you would spring some kind of parallel about how the Jewish state does the exact same thing by constantly advocating for itself instead of backing ALL nations, which (presumably), is what a less racist country would do.
How close am I? I'm pretty close, right?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Just that everybody, everywhere should have a universalist conception of justice.
You'd be ok with THAT idea, wouldn't you?
Behind the Aegis
(53,987 posts)The only person claiming "anti-Semitism is the only bigotry worth fighting" is YOU.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)I don't think anyone is saying otherwise!
This is the I/P forum so bigotry against Jews, and against Muslims/Arabs, are the forms that mainly get discussed here. That's not saying that they're the only forms that matter.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And it's unfair to force other people to keep denouncing him just to prove that THEY aren't antisemites. He's been denounced already. The man has no real influence on anyone or anything. He's just used to tar people like the progressives at Haaretz, or people like Noam Chomsky or the late Howard Zinn, even though none of them had anything to do with the man.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)but if people actively go out of their way to defend him, or sites actively seek and use his contributions, then these people and sites become suspect.
To give an analogy: Fred Phelps is a clearly disturbed individual without much influence on policy, and I would not go around 'forcing' people to declare their views about him; but if someone defends his views, then I would suspect them of being homophobic.
So far as I know, of the people you mention, Chomsky has defended Atzmon's freedom of speech but *not* his views; and I wasn't aware that either Zinn or the progressives at Ha'aretz had ever even been accused of having anything to do with him.
I am not interested in demanding to know what people think of Atzmon if they don't bring them up. Most people don't think about him at all!
On the other hand, Mearsheimer endorsed his book:
'Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their 'Jewishness.' Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon's own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike. '
and has continued to insist that Atzmon isn't really an antisemite.
This suggests that either Mearsheimer is antisemitic himself, or (which is quite possible) he gives his opnions and endorsements without actually reading or researching what he's commenting on: a serious failing in a scholar.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody really listens to Atzmon, and he isn't calling for anybody to kill Jews(as far as I know).
I guess I don't understand why Atzmon really matters that much. He's a disturbed fool...but what real effect does he have?
shira
(30,109 posts)Atzmon not only has fans like Mearsheimer and Richard Falk, who are used by Leftists to bash Israel, but also...
US Boat to Gaza proudly presents antisemite Gilad Atzmon at its fundraising party
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/us-boat-to-gaza-proudly-presents-antisemite-gilad-atzmon-at-its-fundraising-party/
(Former Guardian Reporter) Jonathan Cook: “I have no idea whether Atzmon has expressed anti-semitic views”
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/28/jonathan-cook-i-have-no-idea-whether-atzmon-has-expressed-anti-semitic-views
Palestine Solidarity Campaign hosts Atzmon
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/11/08/the-psc-hosts-atzmon/
The anti-Israel movement is infested with anti-semites.
Also note how quiet most of the anti-Zionist establishment is in refusing to call out the Free Gaza Movement, Mearsheimer, Falk, etc. All 'Leftist' heroes of the anti-Israel movement.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)But people such as Richard Falk and John Mearsheimer ARE of some importance. And when people who posses that level of influence openly support ideologies like the ones outlined in Atzmon's work then we should take notice and at the very least, ask some questions about it.
To continue the analogy... Fred Phelps is neither popular nor influential. His ideology is considered to be odious even by the most right-wing Tea-Party zealots. But imagine that a legitimate political figure suddenly came out in support of his ideas. This might not endear Phelp's ideas to us any more than before. BUT it should cause us to pay closer attention to the beliefs held by the politician who we previously assumed to be relatively normal. Because if he's backing Phelps then he's probably deranged, a secret conspiracy nut, a SERIOUSLY right-wing Christian literalist zealot or is having a psychotic break and requires medical care.
shira
(30,109 posts)In an excellent article published in Ha’aretz (chapeau!), James Kirchick comments on a recent “Washington scandal” that erupted over the language used by two self-defined “progressive” organizations – the Center for American Progress (CAP ) and Media Matters for America – in writings critical of Israel and American Jewish support for Israel.
Kirchick argues that “the rhetoric of the far right has seeped into the discourse of the mainstream left.” He illustrates his point by demonstrating that accusing Jewish supporters of Israel of having “dual loyalty” and putting “Israel first” was very popular with the now defunct far-right publication “Spotlight;” in a related post, David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy adds some additional publications from the far-right fringes and traces the adoption of the “Israel firster”-slur by the far-left. Bernstein then points out:
more...
http://warped-mirror.com/2012/01/14/when-the-mainstream-left-embraces-the-rhetoric-of-the-far-right/
shira
(30,109 posts)It took me some time to think about how I would write this blog entry. I wrote it a few times and deleted it, but I felt that it had to be written, not only because I have fallen victim to this, but mainly to really expose what seems to have become the norm both in society, but more importantly, within certain parts of our media.
It wasnt very long ago,that Jewish people were fearing groups and political parties of the far right. Having come through the second world war, our parents and grandparents instilled in their children the stories of the nazis who commited outrageous and dispicable atrocities against our people and others. These extreme far right groups believed we shouldnt be part of a "normal" society.
I grew up with the knowledge that political groups that support far right policies were a "danger" to the Jewish people, and we should be not only aware of them, but to openly critisise them through education and publicity. Groups such as the "Anti-facist league" were very prominent when I was at school, and I remember proudly wearing a badge on my school blazer.
However, things have changed which I believe is even more frightening but more subtle, and is not being talked about in our mainstream media. It is those groups, who cloak themselves in an "anti-nazi" and "anti-racist" or "no hate" banner,which seems to have become, what I believe to be, a new breed of anti-semitism. A more dangerous, more virulent form of "National socialism". These are far left groups, who think its okay, to call a Jew a "nazi", are intimidating Jews and non Jews who support Israel, using rhetoric that the German Nazis called us, whilst commiting a genocide.
This new breed of fanatical left wing are propogating abuse towards Jews, whilst aligning themselves with extremist groups that are supporting terror attacks upon Israel. They support groups that wish to see the extermination of Israelis, and will intimidate those with abuse who stand up for Israel.
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/amnbrosine-shitrit/the-new-breed-anti-semites
shira
(30,109 posts)Glenn Greenwald has a very Glenn Greenwaldesque post on the controversy over alleged use of anti-Semitic language by bloggers at the Center for American Progress, which I discussed last week.
One would never know from reading Greenwald’s piece that the controversy primarily revolved around the use of the term “Israel-firster” to describe supporters of Israel, much less that one can say two things about that term without much fear of contradiction: (1) it originated on the neo-Nazi fringe, and has only been adopted by left-wingers in the last few years; (2) it’s a term that not only substitutes insults for argument, but it implies loyalty to a foreign power, a longstanding theme in anti-Semitic literature.
As I said before, that doesn’t make the phrase somehow “objectively” anti-Semitic if used by individuals who had no anti-Jewish intent. However, as I also noted, most people of good will try to avoid using phrases related to Jews once they recognize that they have the odor of neo-Naziism about them (and indeed the CAP bloggers deleted the posts in question after the controversy broke). Others, however, like Greenwald, continue to think the phrase perfectly appropriate.
Moreover, left-wing writers tend to be especially sensitive about using language that has potentially racist implications, and also tend to be quick to accuse others of using “dog whistle” phrases–phrases that sound neutral, but are meant to stir racial animosity or invoke racial stereotypes.
more...
http://volokh.com/2012/01/20/glenn-greenwald-on-anti-semitism/
shira
(30,109 posts)Last night yet another hate-meeting took place in Parliament with the Palestine Return Centre holding an event “to commemorate the memory of Palestinian victims over the past six decades especially the last war in Gaza”. (Here is what the PRC is all about. It makes unpleasant reading for Jews).
Jenny Tonge was there ranting about how the Palestinians weren’t responsible for the Holocaust and asking “how can the Israelis treat the Palestinians the way they do after what happened in the Holocaust”.
She criticised the power of the “Israel lobby” and held up a magazine with Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh on the front cover and proceeded to idolise him.
more...
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/jenny-tonge-rants-about-holocaust-idolises-ismail-haniyeh/
shira
(30,109 posts)The hydra head of Jew-hatred appears in an article by Ilse van Heusden, a Dutch woman who gave birth to a healthy boy in Israel. She points out that her medical care was excellent. In fact, too excellent, proof positive that Israel is a racist society.
To be pregnant in Israel is comparable to a military operation. Countless echos and blood tests should produce the perfect baby, nothing can be left to the luck of the draw. The state demands healthy babies and a lot of them too.
Van Heusden's article, published in the Dutch Christian daily Trouw, portrays Israeli prenatal care as a military operation by a state obsessed with producing perfect babies. Her imagery is meant to conjure images of a cold Spartan state that breeds healthy children for military service. And of course, her carefully chosen language evokes memories of Nazi superbabies bred by pliant frauleins.
As van Heusden writes: "The chosen people have to be perfect."
Ilse van Heusden's Israeli doctors discovered that she carried the CMV virus, the reason she had to undergo multiple tests. In her article she admits that CMV can cause severe damage to the fetus. Yet van Heusden chooses to interpret the exquisite care she received--a non-Jew and a non-resident of the Jewish State--in the most negative light possible.
Ilse van Heusden's article is a study in classic Jew-hatred using the Progressive rhetoric of the left.
Yochanan Visser of Missing Peace, wrote a point-by-point refutation of van Heusden's vicious article and asked Trouw to print it as an Op-Ed.
Trouw didn't even bother to reply.
LINK
shira
(30,109 posts)It's a cliché of the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic repertoire: The trusting young Jew who once believed in Israel's righteousness, but learns the "facts," wakes up to the reality that, actually, the nation is a criminal entity and then (heroically) speaks out. Young Jesse Lieberfeld not only produced a lurid screed on the theme, but won a prize for it sponsored by the Carnegie Mellon English department, Student Affairs, and the Office of the President.
Jesse laments that:
This last mandatory belief was one which I never fully understood, but I always kept the doubts I had about Israel's spotless reputation to the back of my mind. "Our people" were fighting a war, one I did not fully comprehend, but I naturally assumed that it must be justified...
Yet as I came to learn more about our so-called "conflict" with the Palestinians, I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. "Genocide" almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms.
No one he knew would dream of portraying Israel harshly? How about Daniel Lieberfeld, his father, who signed an anti-Israel petition at the height of the terror war against Israel in August 2001?
Why is Jesse reminded of Martin Luther King in all this? When friends on his school bus are impervious to "a fresh round of killings" and urge him simply to "defend our race" Jesse recalls the civil rights leader:
Hence the essay and the accolades. Jesse explains that speaking out against Israel is like King speaking out against white supremacists.
Jesse's prize, part of a 2012 Martin Luther King Writing Award and brainchild of Jim Daniels, the Thomas Stockham Baker Professor of English, is described in a university press release.
Among many questions is why and how poet Jim Daniels came to hold anti-Israel views so extreme that he apparently believes the country is perpetrating a "genocide" (against a population that has been growing at a healthy clip for 60 years) and disregarded Martin Luther King's own strong support for the Jewish state.
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/01/carnegie_mellons_prize_for_big_1.html