The New Anti-Semitism: What's New About Anti-Semitism?

[ForestsBeatBushes]

<snip>

Anti-Semitism has been called "the longest hatred" and, judging from events like these, it has retained its extraordinary durability. In recent years, it has morphed and globalized into an ugly mix of neo-Nazi violence; Islamist religious and racial Jew-hating; Palestinian terrorism; ultra-Left anti-Zionism; and the demonization of Israel throughout the world, particularly in the Arab and Muslim nations and in Palestine. The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, by Phyllis Chesler, is a vital contribution to understanding the resurgence of this virulent new strain of anti-Semitism in our time, which Chesler aptly describes as "more threatening and dangerous to Jews than anything that has occurred since World War II."

Chesler thoroughly documents not only the potent rise of neo-Nazi hatred against Jews in Germany, Austria, Russia, Poland, France, and other European countries, but also the religious and racial anti-Semitism that is daily fare in Arab and Muslim nations. The most vicious propaganda in the media since Hitler described Jews as a race of vermin to be exterminated is now widely disseminated in the Middle East, including Palestine. Depictions of Jews as rats, lice, snakes, demons, parasites, hook-nosed liars who made up the Holocaust, evil Nazis, and treacherous conspirators who plot to take over the world, are injecting whole populations with anti-Semitic toxins on a scale that is historically unprecedented.

Chesler does not present a detailed socio-economic analysis of how anti-Semitism has functioned historically to displace the rage of oppressed populations onto an all-purpose Jewish scapegoat. For this kind of analysis (which certainly holds true for the oppressed masses in the Muslim world), Michael Lerner's The Socialism of Fools: Anti-Semitism on the Left is indispensable. Published a decade ago, Lerner's warning that anti-Semitic trends in the Third World, combined with economic and social conflict in America, could augur a period of renewed and heightened anti-Semitism, has proved all too prescient. The crucial contribution of Chesler's book is her detailed presentation of the confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism—the complex hybrid of bigotry that is emerging today. "The anti-racist anti-Zionist," says Chesler, "has a lot in common with the old-fashioned racist anti-Semite." Israel has become "the Jew of the world—scorned, scapegoated, demonized, and attacked." The core of her argument is that Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and violence against Jews in the Arab and Muslim nations, as well as in Europe, Asia, and the United States, are "symbiotically" nourished by a dogmatic form of anti-Zionism promulgated by students, intellectuals, academics, and progressives. The Palestinian Intifada is suffused with this new anti-Semitism and its supporters around the world are infected with it. In short, the new anti-Semitism is "the last acceptable prejudice" on both the Left and the Right.

The confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is present, according to Chesler, when Jews in the Diaspora are held responsible for Israeli policy and targeted for verbal and physical attack. When it is held that all groups are entitled to nationalist aspirations except for Jews; that Israel doesn't deserve to exist while the racism or oppressiveness of any other nation doesn't call for its wholesale elimination. When acts of violence against Israeli civilians and Jews throughout the Diaspora are justified as political strategy. And when Israel is held to a higher standard than any other country and demonized in the family of nations (for example, when the UN recurrently condemns the Occupation while out-and-out genocides escape criticism). Increasingly, Holocaust-denial or worse—blaming the Jews for the Holocaust—is a strong feature of the anti-Zionist onslaught in the Arab and Muslim world, as is the invidious equation of Zionism and Nazism. And most disheartening of all, the confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is present in the Palestinian uprising, which is riddled with organized Jew-hatred pumped into the population on a daily basis in schools, mosques, and on the streets.


http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0311/article/031111a.html

[liberalhistorian]

1. I agree that anti-semitism is not only

one of the oldest hatreds in the world, but also one of the most sickening and despicable. It has caused more pain, suffering, bloodshed, and loss of life throughout the centuries, up to and including this one, than any other people have ever suffered.

However, I'm getting a little tired of not being able to say the slightest word in disagreement with the policies of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, not to mention its deliberate murder of an American, Rachel Corrie, without being immediately and hysterically labeled "anti-semitic." I think that's becoming a label that's slapped onto anyone voicing any criticism at all of an Israeli policy in order to stop any criticism of Israel and to paint anyone voicing it as a bigot, etc. That is simply wrong.

To say you want the total destruction of Israel and its people, that the Jews and Israelis are a __________________(pick an adjective here, because Jews have pretty much heard them all) people who don't deserve to live, let alone their own country, that the Jews control __________________________ (financial world, economic systems, etc., etc., again, you name it, Jews have heard it), to claim that there's somehow a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy", etc., etc., is one thing. That is anti-semitism which needs to be swiftly dealt with, condemned, and stamped out.

But if you say you disagree with the settlements, that they're illegal, that they're blatantly taking land which belongs to the Palestinians leaving said people figuratively and literally out in the cold, or you disagree with the policies of its leaders or its military, etc., etc., THAT IS NOT ANTI-SEMITISM. That is legitimate criticism that people have the right to state. Israel is not, and should not be, immune to criticism because of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong crowd. No country should be immune to criticism. Because you are against the policies of a country doesn't mean you are against its people.

[bluesoul]

2. Exactly

And most of it (if not all) here on DU is about criticism...

[brainshrub]

3. Right on!

[ForestsBeatBushes]

4. Replying to 2 and 3:

at least it's not a r/w source :evilgrin: :hi: !

[Flying_Pig]

5. Agreed. And for a different viewpoint on the subject, "The Politics

of Anti-Semitism", by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair, provides an alternative. In the book, they describe how "anti-Semitism" is used as a tool to silence critics of Israel's policies (something, unfortunately, we see at DU quite often), and as a method to leverage Israel's political positions.

As a person of Jewish heritage, I abhor and detest genuine anti-Semitism, but, I also detest those who use it as a tool, thereby demeaning and insulting the legacy of those have suffered horrible and unspeakable atrocities because of it. Some of these people (who falsely invoke anti-Semitism) are going to have to realize, they can't have it both ways.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Do you think they genuinely believe that

any criticism at all of Israel is anti-semitism and is because the critic is against Jews, or are they well aware that they're just using it as a tool for political leverage and to silence and demean criticism?

[The Magistrate]

12. The Problem With That, Mr. Pig

Is that it does not occur often here in this forum, as you allege paranthetically. Levelling such a charge against a fellow member of Democratic Underground is expressly forbidden, and that rule is enforced. It is true that, on occassion, a person will be judged by the Moderators and Administrators to actually be consistently Anti-Semitic in their comments, and such a person is then removed. A quick look at the forum will suffice to show this hardly stifles criticism of Israel, which bulks rather greater by volume than does defense of that state.

The charge is sometimes leveled at commentators cited by opponents of Israel, and in some such instances, may be warranted.

What very frequently occurs is a sort of pre-emptive claim by persons criticizing Israel, that they do not care if they are called Anti-Semites, or some such formula, but this is only a low debator's ploy, intended to cast in advance a prejudicial light on any disagreement with their criticism, however well justified that disagreement might be.

[rini]

8. Actually I agree

It's the tone of the critisism that makes my hackles rise. There are "code words" we have heard for years. The charge of Jews rule the world and control the USA, is not policy difference, it's pure and rank anti-semitism. Ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc., that is not policy being discussed. Honest critisism, fine, but unfair, unjust, or more than is given to other countries or regions, or people, no I will not accept that.

[liberalhistorian]

13. Agreed. There are definitely

critics who hide behind the code words you refer to, and you know damn well what they really mean. And I will never understand the age-old "Jews rule the world" and similar ridiculous bigoted statements. But that was the point I made in my post above, that critism of Israel does not automatically mean anti-semitism. If you say you want the destruction of Israel and its people, Jews rule/control the world/USA, hide behind code words, etc., etc., THAT is anti-semitism. If you're simply criticising a particular policy of Israel's leaders or its military, however, including its mistreatment of Palestinians, that is not anti-semitism.

[Fight_n_back]

20. However

Why do you need a "however"?

There is a good interview in Harpers (no link avaiable) where one of the guys makes the point that Israel is the only nation in the world whose exisitence is contingent on its behavior. When the US invades Iraq based on a lie no one starts questioning the legitimacy of the US as a nation.

the entire argument is based on an anti semitic undercurrent, recognize it, deal with it and your arguments will be better.

Avram Mitzna was extremley vocal with his criticism of the Isralei government and I never saw him branded as an anti semite.

This argument about being called an anti semite as a "tool" sounds like how bigots respond to blacks and the "race card".

[ForestsBeatBushes]

21. excellent post!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[bluesoul]

22. Hmm

The problem becomes when these "anti-semitic" (btw Palestinians are also semits) accusations are thrown so easily and oftenly around whenever any criticism of Israel's policy is expressed. By such logic critisizing Palestinias or Arabs in general, their policies is anti-Arab and anti-Muslim and they can feel insulted any time there is an article depicting them or accusing them of anything. This is a question of double standards. So posting what Fox or LGF have to say about Palestinians is mere criticism, while posting what Chomsky, Avnery, Zinn or others have to say about Israel's policy is anti-semitism? I would really like to know...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

23. Good point!

However, it seems as if the "I" finds anything anywhere that might throw a bit of written support Israel's way and the "P" naturally quotes from the majority, which are definitely pro-pal. (al-jazeera? ohmigod!)

All in all, it is, as I've pointed out before, Rashoman.

I see it through the prism of my experience and my history. I do not see it as an objective black-or-white issue, but as a matter of survival.

[Fight_n_back]

25. Please learn

the definition of "anti-semitism" and why it is specific to Jew before discussing the issue any further.

[Darranar]

26. What does that have to do with anything?

[sushi]

27. So would I

and I'm not embarrassed to admit that I'm really not sure what anti-Semitism is exactly. I would appreciate a precise definition.

[Fight_n_back]

28. Try

Google dot com

[sushi]

29. I did, and I found

"What is Antisemitism?" by Michael Neumann.

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html

You should read it too.

"Inflating the meaning of 'antisemitism' to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound."

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. The problem

There are lots of folks who don't seek to score political points against Israel. They don't just seek to undermine it, they seek to destroy it.

[sushi]

34. You keep saying that

but everybody knows that it can't be done, so why do you keep going on about it.

[Fight_n_back]

35. What are you talking about?

Israel almost lost the Yom Kippur war. they are surrounded by nations that hate them (I know, you think the hatred is justified, whatever) and they have been in a 50 year war that doesn't seem to be ending soon.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't just hate Israleis, they hate any Jew anywhere.

It "can't happen" because Israel makes sure it "can't happen" (again) over the objections of people like yourself.

[sushi]

37. If you're surrounded

by unfriendly neighbors who resent you it's important to get together and iron out differences and come to peaceful agreements. If they don't like you at least you try to be accepted, because it's important and preferable to be on good terms with your neighbors. Do you think adding more settlements, and building a wall taking in more of the enemy's land, and refusing to talk is helping the situation?

<<It "can't happen" because Israel makes sure it "can't happen (again)...>>

I agree.

"...over the objections of people like yourself."

Meaning? Or like Herschel would say "Explain yourself!"

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Hammering out differences

Israel has indeed done that with the more reasonable neighbors. Both Jordan and Egypt are now at peace with Israel.

But it's not wise to win the war and lose the peace. Just because Israel is outnumbered does not mean it needs to bow down to its Arab neighbors. Nor does it mean some of them will ever accept a Jewish state.

[sushi]

40. Dealing with reasonable neighbors

is easier, yes, and dealing with unreasonable neighbors makes an agreement, when it happens, and it will, because it has to, even more satisfying. It's the way you go about it.


"But it's not wise to win the war and lose the peace."

You can say that again. Watch Iraq.


Who's talking about bowing down? I'm talking negotiating. Every day we negotiate. Some of them don't have to "accept," but will be required to "learn to live with."

I see the day coming when the leaders of the two sides, after they've killed I don't know how many of each other's people, sit together drinking Turkish coffee or mint tea and eating Middle East pastries (too sweet for me) and wondering why they didn't do this sooner, and I hope they'll then feel very guilty about all the people killed.
You know, at the end of Ramadan, it's the Muslim tradition of forgive and forget. That's when they're (supposed to be) the nicest.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. You see the day, I don't

I don't think enough of the Arab or Muslim world wants peace with Israel. They want victory OVER Israel.

It doesn't give Israel many options.

Sure peace would be great. I doubt I will live to see it. Especially since several of the Palestinian groups have vowed to destroy Israel.

[sushi]

48. You see what has

happened in Saudi Arabia. Those extremists even kill their own people, the moderates. In the Middle East I watched Arabic programs, from Egypt and Lebanon, mainly to listen to the language, and they are different people from the hatred spouting, ululating ones you see on the news.

If both Israel and the Palestinians want to give and take they can reach an agreement soon, but (I've said this in another thread) Israel's PM avoids negotiations because it would involve dismantling settlements, which he doesn't want to do. I think he's only postponing the inevitable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Saudi Arabia

Is more an enemy to the Arab or Muslim people than Israel ever has been. SA is a despotic tyranny and an enemy of the U.S., Israel and peaceful Arabs and Muslims.

Sharon doesn't have any motivation to talk peace as long as the Palestinians don't offer it. To offer peace, Arafat or the PA leadership at the time will need to be able to control the Palestinian people. So far, he shows no willingness to do so.

[sushi]

62. I'm glad to see

you know there are peaceful Arabs and Muslims. I thought you were one of those who think all of them are bad. I mentioned the attack on moderates in Saudi Arabia to show that it will take a long time for them to unite, if they ever do. This was what worried you about Mahathir's speech, remember?

Here we go again. I think BOTH sides should be actively going after peace. I think it's ridiculous to demand that the other side has to do something before negotiations can even start. Things to do should be PART of the negotiations. I think that if you support "no negotiations unless......." you indirectly support illegal settlements.

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. I think there are lots

And their governments and agencies and militaries poorly represent them.

No, it is not ridiculous for Israel to say that for it to negotiate peace, it must have someone to negotiate with who offers peace. Right now, no Palestinian offers peace. They offer peace with the PA, but not the terror groups. To offer peace, they need to represent ALL of the Palestinians.

[sushi]

67. That's another thing

we agree on. There are a lot of moderate people in the Muslim countries who are against their oppressive governments. They will "move" given time. I read about the educated people in Saudi Arabia who can't find jobs and have to watch the princes living it up. Then there are the progressives in Iran who want to get rid of the mullahs in power. Just give them time.

About the I/P conflict. There IS someone to negotiate with, Muddle.
I think it's wrong to demand something before you sit down to talk. First the parties sit down and then they make each other offers. Hopefully offers they can't refuse. So the PA doesn't represent all Palestinians. Does the current Israeli government really represent ALL Israelis?

[lumpy]

45. Certainly hatred is not exclusively an Arab emotion.

Some of the interviews with Israeli settlers that have been presented on TV make it clear that Palestinians are hated by these radical groups, let alone their killing of Palestinians and destroying their means of agricultural livelihood. Meir Kahane was vehement in showing his hatred for Palestinians. Sharon has made it clear through his vengeful actions against the Palestinians that his actions are backed by hatred.

[sushi]

49. I have seen hatred spouting

settlers on TV too. It's shocking. I remember the one who said the land is theirs, the Bible said so, but I also remember another Israeli who said these kind of people belong in a mental institution.

[sushi]

39. So what's new

There are lots of folks who seek to undermine or destroy other folks, to occupy, to dominate, to rule/lord over. Human beings, mainly males, are just cruel. Which is why I think it's not right that only some countries can have WMD. It makes those that don't have them vulnerable to bullying by those that do.

[Fight_n_back]

31. Is that

all you found?

[sushi]

32. There's plenty more

but the one I picked, "What is Antisemitism," was the obvious choice.
Anything wrong with it?

[The Magistrate]

33. Mr. Neumann, Ma'am, Is A Puppy

The term is a coinage of the late 19th century, to indicate Jew-hate, and took its form from the drawing room euphemism for Jew, which was not quite a polite term. the persons who coiuned the usage, by the way, thought this Jew-hate was a good thing, necessary to a healthy body politic.

It was not drawn from the usage of Semitic as a family of languages, in which Arabic and Hebrew coexist, along with some other tongues.

Some people do use this latter for a bit of semantic subterfuge, as a cheap debator's ploy, but such need not concern us at any length here.

[sushi]

41. Since "Semites" does mean

Arabs AND Jews, anti-Semitism should not indicate Jew-hate only. It would be better to use "anti-Arab" and "anti-Jew." I disagree with that late 19th century person.

[The Magistrate]

43. Whether It Might Be Better Or Not, Ma'am

We cannot readily say with The Hatter that "When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean!" and continue long to communicate with one another sensibly. The real lack, perhaps, is of a specific term for bigoted hate towards Arabs. That is not, really, a thing of long enough standing to have yet earned a specific term. Hatred of Jews, belief that they constitute a demoniac other great in cunning and malice, is literally as old as Christendom itself. Even conviction of African inferiority is a comparative whippersnapper, as an ingrained bigotry.

Certainly, in a situation where Jews and Arabs are squared off in a war with one another, attempting to use the same term to indicate bigoted distaste and hate for both peoples would serve no interest of communication, but only of confusion.

[Fight_n_back]

47. "would serve no interest of communication, but only of confusion"

Which is, fo course, the entire point of the exercise

[The Magistrate]

50. There Is Another Point To It, Mr. Yang

Which accounts for some of the strenuousness of debate on this facet of the matter.

Persons on the left are much more used to accusing their opponents of bigotries of various sorts, than to being accused of such attitudes themselves. It affronts their self-image deeply, for most imagine themselves to be free of all such taints. Since bigotry is a human failing, and persons on the left are no less human than any others, that is not too likely. What often happens is that, rather like an addict who has exchanged the needle for Christ, some have simply substituted for the generally current bigotries of society a set of approved bigotries current within their adopted radical sphere, and these do not strike them as bigotries, but rather as struggle against enemies of the right and justice.

"There is no man so lonely as a dissenter at a Non-Conformist convention."

[bluesoul]

51. It may be

because those on the right are much more bigoted Mr Magistrate. One could scroll through threads on FR and the on DU and notice the big difference. No one is immune to it that's for sure, but some tend to be more then others. You don't have to be a liberal/leftist to notice and recognize it ;-)

[The Magistrate]

53. My Point Is Not An Identity In Quantity, Mr. Soul

It is merely that the group will always have acceptable detestations aimed toward those outside it, or it is no group. Groups form by exclusion, after all. Persons who feel they struggle hard against widely accepted patterns of bigotry do often come identify bigotry itself with those particular expressions of it, and lose sight of the general drive to objectify and denigrate those other than themselves, which radical groups and thinkers certainly are prone to. One of the reasons left and progressive political action has little mass support in the United States is that many people honestly feel its proponents display an intolerance for ordinary folks, and so they simply will not listen, and that even when the concrete proposals of the left would greatly benefit them, if enacted.

In the more restricted field of this Levantine squabble, it does seem to me that, in certain radical quarters, a quality of bigotry against Israel as the personification of the Jew is beginning to assume the lineaments of a group requirement. Propaganda, remember, is the art of arousing in the persons exposed to it the feeling that the propaganda is what they have always thought themselves, and so forging a unity of mind between the agitator and the audience. Anti-Semitism is so old a feature of the culture of Christendom, and its tropes so deeply engrained, that the temptation to wield them in struggle against Israel must be as tempting as that to pick up any handy weapon laying near in an alley brawl.

[bluesoul]

54. No more

then the deep anti-Arab anti-Muslim feelings that also date centuries back, Sir

[The Magistrate]

56. The One Has Seniority, Sir

Christianity itself was founded on disparagement of Jews, as anyone familiar with its earliest writings, and the political situation surrounding them, may attest. It was necessary for this particular Messianic sect to seperate itself from the nationalist Zealots and others engaged in rebellion against Rome, and later, for the western strains of that sect, that became predominant but departed somewhat from the original orthodoxies, to disparage rival strains that harkened back to Jewish roots and ways in their teachings. These theological squabbles hardened into a habit of persecution that marked all subsequent European history, and played a leading feature in its politics and social thought well into the modern era.

Disparaging hate of Arabs does not begin to feature in Christendom until a half millenia later, when under the impetus of Muslim belief these commenced a campaign of conquest that swept over the old Roman littoral of North Africa, as well as the Levant, and from occupation of Spain bid fair to conquer Europe itself. Through further centuries of war, these were maintained, and indeed produced a deeply ingrained hatred. We tend to forget that Muslim expansion into Europe by force of arms remained a live issue well into the seventeenth century. The containment and reversal of this robbed the hate of Muslims of any real sense they posed a danger. This never happened with the hatred of Jews, nor, really could it: the Moslem danger was real, but the Jewish danger, never being anything but a mental construct false to fact, could never be demonstrated to have been met and broken.

[bluesoul]

57. Actually I don't think

this has much to do with religion anyway, since there are many people that are not religious anyway (atheists and other) and religion has hardly anything to do with their reservations via Israel's policy. Personally I am an atheist and am not burdened with the religious indoctrination of any kind or that religion would influence on my views about the whole thing...

[The Magistrate]

59. At The Risk Of Belaboring A Point Past Decency, Mr. Soul

It is not belief in doctrine that is the operative factor here, but the whole inertia of cultural and social arrangements through time, in which religion plays a great formative role, as one of the basic ingredients of culture and thought. This shaping influence extends far beyond church attendance or paying heed to pastors or even individual belief in diety or dogma. Individuals are not as wholly or easily in control of their views and "gut reactions" as they like to imagine.

An analogy from a different field might shed a little light. Try and determine any major practical difference between foreign policy by Czarist Russia, and by Soviet Russia, in regards to eastern Europe and the Orient. No two governments could have been more different, yet their policies largely aimed towards the same ends, because they were shaped by the military and political geography facing any continental ruler situated at Moscow. The ingrained ways of the past, including religion and its controversies, similarly define a great portion of the mental geography of groups, and the individuals within them, analogous to the physical geography of steppe and forest and freezing water that circumscribe national policy. This is as unavoidable as the influence of parents and childhood events on adult life.

[bluesoul]

61. I would disagree

But let it be so...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

65. Christian theology and the new antisemitism

...

The attitude of the churches is extremely important. Contrary to the popular belief that Britain is now a post-religious society and so what the churches say doesn’t matter, it does matter greatly. The churches still have a great deal of influence in helping create a climate of opinion. Church leaders not only set a tone, but they legitimate attitudes that might otherwise be regarded with suspicion. Moreover, what they say seeps directly into the wider culture; at a time when government spokesmen have lost the trust of the media and general public, statements by priests or Christian non-governmental organizations are treated as unchallengeable truths.

...

Andrew White, the canon of Coventry cathedral who came to prominence as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s representative in the Middle East, has been heavily engaged in trying to promote dialogue and peace between Israelis and Palestinians. He told me of attitudes in the church: ‘These go beyond legitimate criticism of Israel into hatred of the Jews. I get hate mail calling me a Jew-lover and saying my work is evil.’

The reason, he said, was that Palestinian Christian revisionism had provoked a revival of replacement theology. ‘This doctrine was key in fanning the flames of the Holocaust, which could not have happened without 2,000 years of anti-Jewish polemic’, he said. After the Holocaust the Vatican officially buried replacement theology, the current Pope affirming the integrity of the Jewish people and recognizing the state of Israel. But according to Canon White, the doctrine is ‘still vibrant’ among both Roman Catholics and Anglicans. ‘Almost all the churches hold to replacement theology’, he said.

The catalyst for its re-emergence has been the attempt by Arab Christians to reinterpret scripture in order to delegitimize the Jews’ claim to the land of Israel. This has had a powerful effect on the churches, which, through humanitarian work among the Palestinians by agencies like Christian Aid, have been profoundly influenced by two clerics in particular.

...

http://www.axt.org.uk/essays/Phillips.htm

[sushi]

70. I can see why

it would be confusing, but that is no reason to strongly criticize those who, because they didn't know, have used the term to indicate dislike for both peoples. The world is not only Europe, the US, and Israel. Besides, in the dictionary "Semites" means BOTH, and IMO it's far superior to use "anti-Jew" and "anti-Arab." Must add that I find it idiotic to like or dislike a whole people. It makes more sense to like or dislike a person(s), whatever the nationality.

[The Magistrate]

71. My Criticism, Ma'am

Is reserved for those who seek to spread confusion, and to score cheap points by low debator's ploys. Persons who set themselves to debate this matter, particularly in radical circles, may be presumed to know the necessary items of vocabulary for the chosen task.

[lumpy]

44. Can't agree with the statement that Israel is the only nation

in the world whose existence is contingent on it's behavior. This makes no sense, a trifle too dramatic. It would be difficult to find a legitimate reason for denying the existence of Israel since it's legitimacy is an established fact. Undeniabley there are Palestinians who would feel more secure without the state of Israel expanding their borders and are more than bitter over Israel overtaking regions of Arab homeland of many generations. Hardly a reason to make the statement that Israel's existence is contingent on it's behavior.

[edzontar]

60. I DISAGREE!!!! Palestinians are held to this standard even MORE so.

There are folks on this board who say--like our President--that Palestinians have to "Stop Terror" before they can be given a state.

Regardless of whether you believe this idea is right or wrong, it clearly conforms to your thesis about the "existence of a state" being contingent on behavior!!!!

[sushi]

24. Good post

I agree.

What do you think of the following, which I found in the letter page of a newspaper.
"Now I get it, anyone who gets between an Israeli and a piece of Palestinian real estate is an anti-Semite."

[Fight_n_back]

36. Pretty easy doge for you guys

since you withhold the right to decide what is offensive to Jews you can dismiss anyone's claims of Anti Semitism. We should allow Trent Lott to decide what is racist, then he would still be majority leader.

[sushi]

42. I don't understand

why there should be a separate list for Jews of what is offensive. It should be the same for everybody.

And you haven't explained what you meant by your last sentence in post #35!

[Fight_n_back]

64. You certainly don't

understand.

If you tell me I offended you and I say, "That is not offensive, you are worng" then I am telling you that you don't even have the right to define your own feelings.

[sushi]

68. That's it?

I STILL don't understand why Israel has to be different.

And you have't answered my question!

[ForestsBeatBushes]

7. Did anyone bother to read the paragraphs posted

let alone the article, or are the responses simply knee-jerk reactions based on pre-conceived opinions? I'm just asking...

[Old and In the Way]

9. This argument is no different really than those we hear today here.

"If you disagree with Bush, you are against America." If I disagree with Bush, it's because I am against Bush and his agenda, not America.

If I disagree with Sharon, that has no bearing on my position that Israel deserves its rightful existence. For anyone to frame me as "anti-Zionist/anti-Semitist" because I detest the RW actions of the current government is wrong.

[bemildred]

10. I read it.

It is a rather long and intereresting piece.
I thought it was rather good, and she does a rather
fine job of going through the issues.

It's very thoughtful.

To be clear, I don't agree with all of it, but it's a
good discussion. I generally dislike Ms Chesler, I've had
bad experiences with a couple of her earlier books, but she
has an interesting history.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

11. Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

15. Where do you get your ideas?

You have the audacity to write, "...I also see that you don't seem to appreciate any other Tikkun views...". I consider that to have been both called out and attacked without justification.

To clarify, I certainly agree with the following, if not others:

Tikkun is a hebrew word meaning to mend, heal, repair. Tikkun olam, the mandate to continually contribute to the fixing that the world needs, is a core tenet of Judaism.
http://www.tikkun.com/index2.html

Why I Unequivocally Condemn Palestinian Violence
Rabbi Michael Lerner
http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/134.html

"One of the first agreements that was made between the groups organizing the Feb. 16 anti-war protest was that none of the coalitions would propose rally speakers who had publicly attacked or worked to discredit one of the coalition groups. When members of the Tikkun Community, who have actively participated in the organizing meetings for Feb. 16, suggested to Bay Area United for Peace and Justice that it propose Michael Lerner as a speaker, it was explained by members of UFPJ that since he had publicly attacked ANSWER in both the New York Times and Tikkun community email newsletters, his inclusion in the program would violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organizing groups. "It was this issue--Michael Lerner's public attacks against one of the anti-war coalitions--that resulted in his not being formally proposed as a speaker on Feb. 16; his views on Israel and Palestine had nothing to do with it. Within the anti-war movement, there is a wide spectrum of diverse and opposing views regarding Israel and Palestine, and those views will be heard on Feb. 16.
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/united0220.php


The current issue out of which I have yet to find anything with which to disagree:
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

16. The author makes several very good points...

However, there are several problems with the article:

1. Saying that the PNAC strategy involves helping Israel, and that the GOI sees the PNAC goal for the Middle East as worthy one and will help carry out the goal, is neither anti-Zionist nor Anti-semitic.

2. Anti-Zionism is in no way anti-Semitism; I think the author knew that, but too many insinuations were made that anti-Zionism has its basis in anti-Semitism, even if it is not inherently so. However, I agree with the author that selective anti-tribalism (for lack of a better term; I understand that the term triablism is not really appropriate in this situation and is basically propaganda), in essence anti-Zionism while at the same time fighting for the rights of other peoples to such states, is anti-semitic and deserves to be recognized as such.

3. The author seems to be saying that the Left is inherently anti-semitic to an extent; this is not true. Though it IS true that every human has failings and racial prejudice could easily be among them, it is not true that the mainstream Left is inherently anti-semitic in any way. Disagreement with elements of the Left on issues like the right of return or the right for Israel's existence does not mean that those who believe in the former but not the latter are anti-semitic in any way.

4. The problem with waging a war on anti-semitism is that there are issues of racism and bigotry that are more pressing. I do not consider myself as among those self-hating Jews mentioned in the article (though some may disagree), nor do I deny the reality of anti-semitism, but the fact is that anti-semitism is not prevalent in the current American government. If one believes that it is, they should speak to Douglas Feith or Paul Wolfowitz and see what they think about their new identity as supposedly "self-hating" Jews. On the other hand, anti-Muslim bigotry is; of both the blatant sort of General Boykin, and the more subtle form of countless others within the Administration and the government as a whole.

That is not to say that anti-semitism is not a problem; it most certainly is. That is not to say that hatred of Jews is any better than hatred of Muslims; that is most certainly untrue, and belief in such is a form of bigotry. That is not to say that anti-semitism is not very strong in the Arab world; that is also a fact, however much I would like to deny it. I do not think anyone would contest, however, that the Arab nations are not the most powerful in the world; none (aside from Pakistan, which is concerned with India and not Israel) possess nuclear warheads as of now, and none have conventional forces that have the slightest chance of matching the US war machine. Even as a bloc, they lack the military, economic, and political strength of the US. Once NATO or the UN is put into the picture (as would likely be the case if the Arab nations saw fit to actively and strongly challenge American imperialistic interests) there is really no rational claim that could be made for any sort of equivalency whatsoever.

In other words, anti-semitism, like every other form of bigotry and intolerance, should be challenged. In doing so, however, we should have a sense of scale; there is no doubt that racism exists against whites, but there is no good reason for our government to create an affirmitave action program for them. That is a rather extreme example, admittedly; whites are not a minority, and bigotry towards them is far less prevalent then anti-semitism. However, it is a sound example in that complete equality in such matters is foolish.

All in all, however, this is a rather nice article. Such articles from Tikkun are much appreciated; they force me to challenge my own thoughts on the matter without being able to write off the entire article as racist junk because considerable parts of it were.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. This is a better take on this issue than I've seen before

One of more disturbing trends I've observed in recent years has been the tendency of the Left to turn a blind eye to anti-Semitism or to engage in it in the guise of criticism of Israel. When I moderated this forum, there were certain articles, most often from CounterPunch, that presented difficulties in terms of whether or not to even allow discussion. One in particular that I remember, written by an Israeli dissident and apparently poorly translated from Hebrew, used the word Zionism about six different ways. The use of a single word with multiple meanings in a way as to confuse and manipulate the reader is part of the propagandist's art. If nothing else, that particular article demonstrated why DU makes rules admonishing participants of this board to use words like that carefully.

Another article made, along with some points worthy of discussion, some gratuitous comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany. The author of the article might have thought he was scoring some points, but the truth is that it would have been a much better piece if he had simply omitted the inflammatory rhetoric.

Ideally, left wing anti-Semitism should be an oxymoron. Leftists should be committed to democracy, which implies an adversity to all forms of racism and sectarianism including anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, perhaps in a zeal to pontificate legitimate criticism of Israel, leftists writers too often engage in some of the practices described by Ms. Greenspan. It is most unbecoming, to say the least. As a progressive, I find it embarrassing.

The best remedy for all of us is to call it when it is seen. The friendly readers of this board are invited to study Ms. Granspan's ten ways to be an anti-Semite and examine criticism of Israel in terms of whether it is free of those flaws. Each of us might also read what we write ourselves in those terms. In this way, we on this forum will make a better contribution to serious discussion of I/P issue.

[Fight_n_back]

19. I view every Gentile

as Anti semitic until they show me otherwise.
I view every white Amerian as a Racist until they show me otherwise. I view every straight person as a homophobe until they show me otherwise. I view every man as a sexist until they show me otherwise. I view every Dodger fan as the embodiment of all that is dark, evil, sinister and wrong with this plane of exisitence and there is nothing they can do to prove themselves otherwise.

But I am a good tipper and will give you a ride to the airport if you ask me.

[Aidoneus]

55. FBB was tombstoned?

.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

63. Yes - and no reason was given.

If I get the same, you'll know why.

[MrPrax]

69. so being against Zionism is?

what again?...anti-semitism?
"as the invidious equation of Zionism and Nazism"...I always thought Zionism was equated to racism...
Buzzwords and 'hot' points galore in this 'crank'...
"The crucial contribution of Chesler's book is her detailed presentation of the confluence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism—the complex hybrid of bigotry that is emerging today." um...real or imagine it apparantly can be confluenced by Jewish writers, Christian Zionists, Islamic extremists and racists...
why bother taking the time to explain the differences between Racism and Zionism?
""symbiotically" nourished by a dogmatic form of anti-Zionism promulgated by students, intellectuals, academics, and progressives."--ah the people who have fought against racism and anti-semitism, promoted human rights and international law are NOW part of the Aryan Nations...
Shit this stuff is tired...

...like reading Wilcott Robertson or something...heh

[The Magistrate]

72. We Have, Mr. Prax

In the not too distant past seen many attempts in this forum to equate Zionism with Nazism: there is a reason it is specifically forbidden in the guidelines. In some radical circles, it remains the height of style in sloganeering over this matter. You might find it instructive to go back to the old forum archives, and poke around in the pages prior to about May of last year.