Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism (Guardian editorial)

[MikeGalos]

Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews

Emanuele Ottolenghi
Saturday November 29, 2003
The Guardian

Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it.

Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.

There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.

<most of text removed for Fair Use Doctrine compliance>

Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.

<Full text available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1095694,00.html >

[bluesoul]

1. The first part is good

The second part is bollocks...

[MikeGalos]

3. You mean

you disagree with the second part?

Care to say what parts?

[bluesoul]

5. Parts like this

"Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. " that are supposed to be mind readings of what critics actually mean or feel. The whole "anti-semitism" accusing has become a lame excuse of avoiding responsibility and criticism. Or the thing about wanting Israel to "commit national suicide". That is just absurd and ridiculous. As are many other claims from those defending Israel's policy...

[MikeGalos]

8. So you only read the 4 paragraphs

that I quoted... (Pretty obvious by calling the closing paragraph of a long essay "the second part")

And so, you disagree with national liberation movements? (just those by Jews or do you oppose Palestinian national liberation movements?)

You think nations should commit national suicide? (or just Jewish nations?)

What is it, exactly, that you disagree with? We're waiting to hear...

[bluesoul]

9. I was referring to the part you quoted

And I didn't say they SHOULD commited national suicide, but that they are accusing OTHERS of wanting that to happen, which is ridicolous. Reading minds as I said, even though no one even mentioned such wishes.

I disagree with the tone and the accusations being thrown what others supposably wish to happen, even if that only exists in the minds of those throwing out such ludicrous claims...

[MikeGalos]

12. Please read the entire essay

before commenting. Fair Use requirements prevent quoting all relevant parts. In a news article where the gist is in the first paragraph, that's OK. In an essay or editorial the key parts are built in the entire piece and as such, the entire article must be read to speak from any point other than ignorance.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Unfortunately, this happens

There are pieces posted on this forum from time to time that provide excellent examples of these kinds of excesses. One of the toughest calls I made when I was a moderator on this forum involved an article from either CounterPunch or ZNet about Israel's settlement policy. It made a number of points that were worth discussing. It also made a number of gratuitous and very offensive comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany. Discussion was allowed to continue only because it my personal policy to err on the side of keeping discussion open. Needless to say, there were a number of people who weren't too happy about that decision and I understand why they were upset.

That particular item problably contained in one piece the best and worst of the leftwing critique of Israel. If the author had left out the references to Nazi Germany, it would have been an excellent, thought-provoking work. The ironic thing is that in his attempt to drive home his point with emotional images one of hisotry's greatest crimes, the author marred his own work and distracted from his points.

This practice does the greater disservice in that it provides a stamp of approval for such excesses that divide rather than unite the human race. That is not what the left wing is supposed to be about.

[pistoff democrat]

63. Interesting post,

but it is tangential to the article at hand.

Where is the offensiveness in that article?

Thank you.

[Jack Rabbit]

65. I'm sorry

I don't understand your question.

Where was the offensiveness in what article? The one that was posted here? That was about fourteen months ago. I couldn't find it now if I wanted to.

[pistoff democrat]

67. No, I'm sorry.

I was referring to what you might have found offensive in THIS article.

[Jack Rabbit]

71. Nothing, really

Please read my posts.

The author allows that criticism of Israel can be legitimate. He even allows that one can question the worth of bringing Israel into existence. This provides a wide range for discussion. I have no problems with any of that.

[The Magistrate]

106. Indeed, Mr. Rabbit

We had to make some tough calls, as Mr. Lithos and Ms. Railroad do today. It is certainly better to err on the side of open discussion, but my distaste for "Counter-Punch" in particular stems from the journal's willingness to utilize such propagandist excesses in its advocacy. This is a habit that goes a long way to discredit an advocate, in my view: the truth ought to be sufficient to uphold one's position, or that position ought to be rethought.

One of the reasons behind this tendency, it seems to me, is an element at the very heart of propaganda as an art. Propaganda aims to rouse in the persons exposed to it a feeling that "this is just what I think!" and so build a group identity between the agitator and the audience. Anti-Semitism is so old a feature of Christendom that its ancient tropes are a lurking part of the mental furniture of most people in the West, and so powereful a tool for rousing this feeling that "this is just what I think!" is not likely to be long left lay in a struggle for minds, just as a club laying ready to hand is not likely to be left long lay in the vicinity of a fight in an alley: someone will pick it up and use it....

[Jack Rabbit]

142. Ah, yes, those were the days, my friend

(T)he truth ought to be sufficient to uphold one's position, or that position ought to be rethought.

How true, how true.

[Capt_Nemo]

2. It is not an "editorial", it is an opinion piece

by someone who is very far from being an independent analyst.

The editorial pieces from The Guardian editorial board can be found
in the section named "Leaders":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/

[GabysPoppy]

4. What then is an editorial if not an opinion piece?

:crazy:

[MikeGalos]

6. Notice that the only editorials we're supposed to read

are from the section marked "Leaders"

Guess if you think for yourself rather than reading only what the "Leaders" approve, you might be a problem...

[drdon326]

10. Even better...

when you like it it an "editorial"

when you dont like it, its a "opinion piece".

( i guess we should be happy he didnt call it a
RW OPINION PIECE).

[MikeGalos]

13. I'm not sure anybody here

would have the nerve to say The Guardian is right-wing. I'm waiting for somebody really ignorant to question the source as a pro-Israel mouthpiece...

[edzontar]

90. Editorial generally means its the opinion of the editors

Of the paper.

An opinion or op ed piece generally means a piece that reflects the view of a single or joint authors.

NY Times editorials are editorials.

Tom Friedman or Paul Krugman peices are columns and could be called opinion peices.

Op eds are usually one-shot pieces, like say when Jimmy Carter writes a piece for the editorial page of the NYT.

What annoys me is when editorials or opinion peices are cited as "Articles"--these are very distinct genres and are much less close than "Editorioals" are to "opinion" pieces...

This is something I have seen you do on more than one occassion, drdon--so why not give the guy a break?

[Aidoneus]

14. Well..

I would assume that the Guardian has an editorial board (that may be the 'Leaders' link specifically given above).. a regular sort of feature that would, ostensibly, consistantly intend to represent the sort of general ideas that the paper's bosses would like to project. Standard sort of thing in newspapers.

Then, at other times, there are outside/guest writers who offer up pieces for publication that may, and indeed often do, clash radically with the more typical ideas put out regularly on a more consistant basis. This is probably meant to be taken as offering something up for discussion, rather than intending to represent the typical views of a publication.

The original poster appears to think that just because this is a "Guardian editorial" (which it is not, rather an opinion piece by an outside commentator and not of the Guardian editorial board), those who read the paper will then, like good herd animals, unquestioningly consider it just because the Guardian said it.

[GabysPoppy]

16. Claiming intelligence

requires reading ALL VIEWPOINTS to make up one's mind.

Reading pieces only which share your own viewpoints is considered something else.

:shrug:

[Aidoneus]

21. That is indeed true

But not something that was hinted at.

This wasn't a "Guardian editorial", strictly speaking, but rather an opinion piece by an outside commentator (in this case, a teacher of Israeli Politics at Oxford University). Exactly that is intended by pointing out exactly that.. not sure why there is the confusion in the response to this.

[MikeGalos]

17. Opinions in newspapers

There are generally four types of opinion pieces in a newspaper:

1. Staff Editorials - written by the Editors of the paper and declaring the paper's policy
2. Guest Editorials - written by an outsider and being important enough and of high enough quality that the Editors consider it worth printing.
3. Syndicated Columnists - purchased as a subscription and having little to no editorial involvement on a day-to-day basis. Each column may or may not reflect the editorial standards but the overall history of the work does.
4. Letters - written by readers and printed to show a sampling of reader views and are generally not representative of editorial standards.

This is very clearly a Guest Editorial being both important enough and of high enough quality for the Editors of The Guardian to rate it as worth Editorial space despite the author being an outside notable rather than an employee. As such, it carries the weight of the Editorial staff's approval and invitation.

[tinnypriv]

133. Incorrect

It carries only the weight of an invitation. Nothing else.

It does not carry any "approval", since in the context you are using that word, "invitation" means the same thing.

Other than that, this is a sensible (and accurate) post.

I suspect we'd agree that quibbling over the word "editorial" and "op-ed" is rather meaningless as well. Especially so since in British newspapers an "editorial" is called a "leader". I do not see anybody claiming that this is of that type, so I don't see the problem.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Do we need to split hairs over that, Captain?

Apart from the fact that some say it's Morgan and others say it's an Arabian, tell us what you think of this particular horse.

[MikeGalos]

27. Because

if you can turn the argument into a discussion of horse breeds then people won't notice a very important guest editorial that is of absolutely critical need here in this forum.

(Personally, though, I think it's a Hannovarian/Percheron cross)

[rini]

82. I think this red herring is a horse of another color.

Let's get back to the issues at hand please.

[Jack Rabbit]

84. Good one, rini

Yes, this is another example of a red herring. Very good.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. A very well-considered argument

EDITED to change "Ms." to "Mr."

Thank you for posting.

If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

It's tempting to say that Mr. Ottolenghi is presenting a strawman argument here. However, I have seen too many articles written for publication in leftwing journals that fit his description and he is citing real examples.

It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.

Mr. Ottolenghi here suggests a better framework the debate than the one too often used.

It is one thing to be angry at General Sharon for the excesses of his regime. However, that anger should be directed at General Sharon and his ministers. When that anger spills over and holds Jews as a people responsible for Sharon's sins, then one crosses the line from legitimate criticism of Israel into anti-Semitism.

[MikeGalos]

11. Exactly

It was the reprinting of some of the worst of the "hooked nose Jew" cartoons here that brought about a change in the rules on posting editorial cartoons. I think it became obvious that there was a problem when some of the cartoons bore a remarkable resemblence to those published in mid-30s Germany.

It's a pleasure to see somebody actually discuss while it is true that not everyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite it is just as true that criticizing Israel does not provide a blanket validation that the critic is NOT an anti-Semite. As another example, we had an odd alliance here earlier this year with people defending David Duke because he was critical of Israel and flat out saying that it was unreasonable to say that the former Klan leader was an anti-Semite.

[rini]

15. I think this is an excellent article

The points made are accurate if understated.

I believe that anti-semites have co-opted a niche in leftist philosophy and turned it into a feeding frenzy of hate. I refuse to acknowledge them as fellow liberal/progressives, a title they fight to hold. They are nothing but right wing demagauges and should so be called.

I also believe that I/P issues are a smokescreen. A simple look at the invectives used when discussing Israel vs any other country on the face of the Earth demonstrates hatred, not just of Israel, but of Jews as a viable people.

Thank you for posting this.

[MikeGalos]

19. I did find it rather amusing

earlier this year here in I/P when I was called right-wing for supporting Israel but David Duke was defended as a Liberal because he was pro-Palestinian.

While politics can make strange bed-fellows that was a time I chose to sleep on the couch.

[rini]

24. LOL

[Aidoneus]

26. The time away must've really done a number on your memory cells

Exactly when was it that David Duke was "defended as a Liberal because he was pro-Palestinian"? Astoundingly bullshit claims like that will not go unquestioned, do back up such remarks with something resembling evidence..

[MikeGalos]

29. My brain cells are fine - thanks for asking

When Duke's "No War for Israel" website was quoted here. When the site was defended here because he was pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel and backed the nutsy-kookoo idea that Bush was a puppet of a Zionist conspiracy to oust the Iraqi government that got some fringe play here.

But, I can understand why you'd repress those memories...

[bluesoul]

31. Who are those "right wing demagauges" your talking about Rini?

Anyone here? I would really LOVE to hear you explain your accusations...

[Darranar]

32. I think she's right...

in regard to such people as Pat Buchanan and David Duke, as well as some radicals at CounterPunch...

[bluesoul]

33. She was speaking about Pat and Duke?

I would disagree with COunterpunch being RW, they're far from that (Avnery, late Said, Neve Gordon...)

[Darranar]

40. Counter Punch is not Right wing...

but they have had a number of articles loaded with borderline, and sometimes blatant, anti-semitism.

That is not to say that they have nothing of worth; I have posted one or two articles from them in the past.

[Classical_Liberal]

150. Counter punch has been sadly antisemitism tolerant though

I have noticed less of it lately

[rini]

39. specifically

I was thinking of International Solidarity Movement, look at the anti-semitic posters, not anti-Israel policy, but anti-semitic. BTW, check out the funding. There are other organizations, but ISM is a good start. Remember look at the invective.....

I am sorry you immediately saw some I/P people in my posting.

[Darranar]

41. ISM is anti-semitic?

Prove it.

[MikeGalos]

43. Just to make this fair

What would you consider proof?

What is is that YOU consider anti-Semitic?

[Darranar]

45. Anti-semitism is hatred of all Jews...

making unfair generalizations about Jews, or holding all Jews to a higher standard.

If you can show me something the ISM did that was anti-semitic, I'll count that as proof.

[MikeGalos]

47. So by your standards

A Klan member in the Deep South who lynches a black man isn't a racist because he's OK with "darkies who know their place"?

Perhaps you want to clarify that "All Jews" requirement...

[Darranar]

49. That's racist...

because it regards all African Americans as inferior - a generalization.

[pistoff democrat]

51. But you just wrote "all Jews"

:crazy:

[Darranar]

52. What?

I used or, not and...

Any one of the three, or any combination of the three, is anti-semitism.

[pistoff democrat]

73. Please see 64

Thank you

[MikeGalos]

54. So

Treating some blacks differently is proof of underlying racism
Treating some Jews differently is NOT proof of underlying anti-Semitism

Odd. In your world, to be a racist doesn't require explicit hatred of all blacks. (and I'd agree)

But, in your world, someone must demonstrate a specific and active hatred of not just some Jews, not just most Jews, but you actually require them to explicitly hate each and every Jew in the world before you'll admit to them being an anti-Semite.

By that standard, Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite. Your standard either is not explained clearly or is clearly not thought through.

The author includes as anti-Semitism condemning Jews behaving in a specific manner even when that behavior is accepted as fine for non-Jews. I'd include that. Would you?

By extension racism includes condemning Blacks behaving in a specific manner even when that behavior is fine for Whites. I'd include that. Would you?

If your answers weren't the same? Why not?

If your answers were the same, why treat a state run by Jews by different standards than a state run by non-Jews?

[Darranar]

57. I used or, not and...

read my post again.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

69. Even with a comma inserted it still isn't right

First, I'm assuming you didn't really mean, "Anti-semitism is hatred of all Jews making unfair generalizations about Jews, or holding all Jews to a higher standard." because that would mean that someone's only an anti-Semite if they hate Jews making generalizations...

But even if I clean up the punctuation and it becomes: "Anti-semitism is hatred of all Jews, making unfair generalizations about Jews, or holding all Jews to a higher standard." that still has you saying the Klansman lynching a black man for wanting to date a white woman isn't a racist because he thinks the subservient Black guy who runs the barbecue stand is an OK fella and that means he doesn't hate ALL blacks and only holds SOME blacks to different standards.

I hope that really isn't what you meant.

Please clarify.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

100. So you think

that's a generalization but not an unfair generalization so you're OK with that definition of racism. And you're saying that blacks mixing with whites is potentially a catastrophe?

I hope I'm reading that wrong.

BTW: Change lynch to beat and you've got the mindset of a LOT of people I went to high school with in Georgia. It's not a wildly artificial.

The reason for hammering this out is that I've seen a LOT of definitions of anti-Semitism here on I/P that are so wildly racist themselves that nothing short of leadership in the actual Nazi Party qualified.

[Lithos]

107. Mr. Galos

That is not what he said nor implied.

You just complained there are many definitions of anti-semitism which verge on bigotry. Instead of trying to find fault with someone, would it not have been a better use of time to try and build up a definition of bigotry in a constructive manner?

You have a strong gift of language, forceful, blunt and strong like a hammer. Please remember that like a hammer, it takes more foresight and care to use it to build than to destroy.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[MikeGalos]

109. I'm merely seeking

a simple, clear definition of the phrase that can be used here. Since Anti-Semitism is the topic, it seems important that there be some real definition that is no more watered down than those used for other forms of bigotry.

I'm sure you've seen many times here where blatent bigotry against Jews was defended as "not really anti-Semitic because..." while the same statements against any other group would have brought howls of protest.

As the article makes clear, there is a strong tinge of bigotry in the criticism of Israel. Not all criticism but certainly some. Not all conscious but bigotry nonetheless. We need to discuss what that bigotry is.

Certainly Israel and especially the current elected officials deserve some criticism but only the same level of criticism as other's in similar situations. To do otherwise IS bigotry. Intended or not. To recognize that bigotry not only should be done here on the left but must be done.

[Darranar]

112. Let me ask you this, then...

what would be your definition of anti-semitism?

[Lithos]

117. Then advance your own suggestion with your lines of thinking

If you want the simple definition, then bigotry is nothing more than irrational hate based on some easily applied label. However, something tells me this isn't what you want.

Personally, I think you will find it a more fertile ground to discuss the opposite of bigotry which is tolerance and to discuss how to improve it. My recommendation is to visit a great website called www.tolerance.org

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

On Edit: Grammar

[bluesoul]

151. Israel deserves more then just "some" criticism

since it's policies are not what a normal average country does, certainly not one say in Europe... 3/4 of the world countries are not occupying other land and having people of another nationality under curfews and subject of daily raids and checkpoints and wall building and illegal settlements. That is something you will have to realize mr Galos when comparing Israel to some average country elsewhere...

[drdon326]

158. Nonsense....

A normal country doesnt have to worry about suicide bombers
everyday.

And israel is a whole lot more "normal" than other countries in the
ME....I'M sure you heard of FREEDOM, WOMENS EQUAL RIGHTS,
HEALTH CARE,FREE PRESS, ETC. Something not undertood by
israels neighbors.

[The Magistrate]

159. My Dear Doctor

Since when is political liberty and equality of the sexes normal? They seem rather rare treasures to me, Sir, to be cherished in the uncommon event of their occurence....

[drdon326]

46. Easy...

know its heritage....

WWP gave birth to ANSWER which gave birth to ISM.

WWP and ANSWER have called for taking down israel as a state
and replacing it with some other entity.

In addition by give pale lip service to the suicide bombings
and in some cases defending terrorist tunnels, they are
easily anti-israel.

[Darranar]

48. I said anti-semitic, not anti-Israel...

and please expand on ANSWER's and WWP's connection to ISM.

[MikeGalos]

55. By the author's definition

and one I accept, holding a state run by Jews to a different standard than a state run by non-Jews IS BY DEFINITION anti-Semitic.

[drdon326]

56. Not like it matters to you... but i looked it up.

http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/151.html
Banning Lerner from Speaking at the anti-war demo
| 02.16.2003


Why Rabbi Lerner Blew the Whistle on ANSWER: The Facts

The TIKKUN COMMUNITY has opposed the use of violence as a means for resolving conflicts, and has consistently opposed the war in Iraq. Thousands of us marched against the war on February 15 and 16, despite the refusal of the anti-war organizers in SF to even allow Rabbi Michael Lerner's name to be considered as a possible speaker. But it is important to understand the background of that issue--and to not let it be erased from memory.

TIKKUN Community members  organized in the Jewish community and in other spiritual communities to bring people to the October 2002 demonstrations against the war, organized by ANSWER. Rabbi Lerner was an original signatory to the Not In Our Name statement and endorsed the ANSWER rally.

But at that rally the ANSWER coalition put forward an array of speakers who used anti-Israel rhetoric to link the struggle against the Iraq war to Israel-Palestine. This was offensive to a very large numbers of Jews who attended the rally.
................................................................


AND

Was discussed extesively on DU1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=37942&forum=DCForumID60&archive=

read it.

[Darranar]

58. Thank you...

but where is ANSWER's connection to ISM?

[drdon326]

59. Who do you think financially supports them??

this one youre going to look up.

[drdon326]

60. Answer's anti-semitism...from tikkun

However, what demonstrators experienced at the ANSWER rally was something far different—a climate of hostility to Israel which can only be understood as a manifestation of underlying anti-Semitism

[MikeGalos]

62. In addition

David Duke's anti-Israel website linked to ANSWER's website with a very prominent banner ad. ANSWER was notified and specifically DID NOT have it removed.

(and, yes, I was one of the people who notified ANSWER and I've got the receipt to prove they got the message)

[pistoff democrat]

86. David Duke and ANSWER?

I do believe the left and the right went their 'opposite' ways and ended up in bed together.

[drdon326]

61. dupe

.

[rini]

68. I am a little confused here

yes you said all, but when you see a sign with a Star of David and a swaztika drawn across it, does the term anti-semitic come to mind? Actually what does comes to mind when you see that? What comes to mind when you are at rallies and hear Jews, not Israeli policy cursed. When you hear Israelis cursed, but not terrorists?

Please tell me what exactly would have to be done or said before you might say "was that meant as an anti-semitic remark?" I am not trying to be nasty, but I am very curious?

[Darranar]

75. Equating Israel with the Nazis...

is sharply innaccurate and shows a clear bias on the part of the one who is doing it.

When Jews are attacked and nto Israeli policy, then that is anti-semitic.

But no one has yet managed to answer my question: How is ISM anti-semitic?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

80. Yes I have.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[GabysPoppy]

87. I would settle for once.

edited for clarity

[pistoff democrat]

88. The Cavalry has arrived!

:yourock:

[Darranar]

93. Well, read the thread then!

[MikeGalos]

91. See post 85

for the explanation of how your "definition" allows for Klan lynchings not to be racist.

But, you're happy with your definition.

[Darranar]

20. This article gets some of it right and most of it wrong...

First of all, his definition of Zionism and anti-Zionism are both wrong.

Zionism is the belief that Jews deserve a nation in Palestine. Naturally, such an action involves mass immigration, and, to some extent, expulsion. Opposition to that is not in any way anti-semitism. Singling out such an attempt as "evil" but supporting the attempts of others to return to their ancient homelands and kick out a considerable portion of the residence would, however, be anti-semitic. It is the singling out, not the oppostion itself, that would be anti-semitic. He maanages to touch on this somewhat, but he innaccurately equates the Zionist national liberation movement with other national liberation movements.

The situation with other ethnic groups is different. Equating the two is misleading. National liberation movements of the sort of the Palestinians call for a sovereign state of their own in the land which they have been living for years. That is quite different then a return (for the most part; there were some Jews living in Palestine when the first Zionist pioneers came) to an ancient homeland and the expulsion of many of the indigenous residents.

He also engages in somewhat of a strawman argument in the following paragraph:

Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

The belief that the Palestinians and the Jews of the region should join together in a binational state is not racist towards either side. It is based on the belief that the Palestinians had a home there and therefore the Jews had no right to knock them off. It is not advocating ethnic cleansing; rather, it is advocating unity. It is not a pragmatic plan at the moment, but it being not pragmatic does not make it racist.

It is not opposition to national liberation; it is opposition to the form of national liberation advocated by Zionism. According to those advocates, Jews - or any people - do not have the right to enter a land that is not their own and form a state there, and in the process expel a large number of the inhabitants. You may disagree with them; that does not make them anti-semitic.

As for the rest of his points about a considerable degree of anti-semitism involved in the pro-Palestinian cause, I must say that he is right.

On edit: When it comes to Israel and Nazism, there is no comparison. The simple scale of the atrocities committed by Hitler are not comparable to those committed by any of the various sides in any way.

[MikeGalos]

23. Actually

The author's definition of Zionism as the nationalist movement of the Jewish people is both correct and the traditional definition.

By saying that unlike any other people on the planet, Jews should accept as their national identity that of minority population in someone elses land IS exactly the point made in the essay. It says that Jews, unlike any other people, should best only exist as a minority and should never be allowed their own self-destiny. And that, as the essay points out, quite rightly in my opinion, is saying that Jews should not have the same rights as any other people. If saying that Jews should not have the same rights as any other people isn't a definition of anti-Semitism, I challenge you to say why.

[Darranar]

25. But that's not what the claim of anti-Zionists is at all...

and that is the straw-man.

The problem isn't a Jewish majority, the problem is using force and ethnic cleansing (which was necessary to achieve the Zionist dream, though not to the extent that it occured) to achieve a state with that Jewish majority.

The article is taking opposition to a certain element of Zionism and enlarging it to opposition to Jewish rights.

[MikeGalos]

28. But, interestingly

the PA insisting that there be no Jews in their state and insisting that it be an ethnically pure Arab state isn't criticized. Odd. How do you explain that?

Jordan constitutionally banning Jews from citizenship (and Jews lived there for centuries) isn't criticized. Odd. How do you explain that?

What is it about a Jewish state that sticks in the anti-Israel people's craw while dozens of ethnically pure Arab states are just fine and dandy?

Simply put, what is it about a Jewish nationalist movement that is condemned as "racist" while every other nationalist movement is to be applauded as "a people's inherent right to identity and self-determiniation" if not just a case of saying "Jews don't get the same rights as anyone else"?

[Darranar]

30. How is the PA insisting that...

when the letters of mutual recognition are still floating around? Some in the PA certainly would want that, but why equate such radical opposition to Zionism (which crosses the border into anti-semitism) with anti-Zionism of a different sort? Your introduction of Arab and PA policies in this debate is a distraction, and also innaccurate when it comes to the PA and misleading when it comes to the Arab world. The Arabs did not come from Europe, take over Jewish land, and then expel them to Israel. I don't support the Arab policies, but they are another matter with many differences that you are not taking into account.

Many of the anti-Zionists who are NOT racists or anti-Semites (and there are many of them) do not oppose Jewish self-determination, but rather the idea that jews, or any people, can take another people's land to achieve this right in their ancient homeand.

[MikeGalos]

34. Nonsense

If you actually read the editorial, a key piece of anti-Semitism disguising itself as anti-Israel is, and I quote here, "Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?"

I pointed out precisely that kind of double standards that the author rightly points out as anti-Semitic.

As for how the PA insists on an ethnicly pure Palestine, this is hardly a secret, for example: All treaties approved by the PA insist that the Jews now living in West Bank and Gaza be relocated. Notice that there is NEVER a provision for them to be granted Palestinian citizenship. Another example is the still-active Palestinian National Covenant, the very declaration of priciples of Palestinian Nationalism, has, as it's very first item, "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation." Care to show any place in any Palestinian document that shows support for ANY non-Arab's rights?

Not caring about Palestinian or other Arab or, for that matter, any non-Jewish ethnic identity movement's actions or philosophies while criticizing less extreme behavior in Jews, singles Jews out for special treatment. And that is precisely what the author points out as anti-Semitism.

As the author asked: Why such different treatment?

[bluesoul]

35. Do you see ANYTHING

good with Palestinians/Arabs mr Galos?

[MikeGalos]

37. Certainly

Do you see ANYTHING good with Jews bluesoul?

But I do condemn racism and bigotry even when Palestinians call for it. Don't you?

[bluesoul]

44. I see a lot of things

good with Jews or Israel. There are many people that I truely respect (Avnery, Gush Shalom) or news sources as Haaretz (even though I might not always agree they tend to be very fair and as objective as possible) as there are many other Jewish intelectuals around the world or even political leaders (like the sadly late Rabin) that could have made a difference as opposed to Sharon. So you see I do make the distinction, it certainly ain't a black white world, that's for sure...

[MikeGalos]

50. And I ask again

But I do condemn racism and bigotry even when Palestinians call for it. Don't you?

[bluesoul]

53. Of course I do

I have no love for the terrorists, or Arafat for that matter, I simply support Palestinians as a nation and their right to a state and the land they live on..

[Darranar]

38. Personally...

I would agree with the PA about the settlements. They are on stolen land, and those who live on them would not assimilate very well with the populace. That is not calling for an ethnically pure state, that is calling for the return of stolen land, a legitimate cause.

But that still is not the issue, and you seem to be carefully dodging it. There IS a difference between Zionism and the national liberation of the Kurds or the Chechyans. That difference is not simply religion or ethnicity.

[The Magistrate]

102. There Does Not Seem Such A Difference To Me, Mr. Darranar

The degree of dispersal over time is a factor, certainly, but it is not a difference in kind, nor is it unique: there has been considerable dispersal of Armenians, for example, and of Kossovo Albanians.

It is worth pointing out again that at its inception, the Zionist enterprise was wholly legal, and used legal and peaceable means in establishing Jewish emmigrants' presence in Mandatory Palestine. It is false to state its fruition required "ethnic cleansing" or violent dispossession in any form. That some degree of expulsion by force occured in the course of war in '48 is true, but there was nothing about that war that was inevitable: it was the result of decisions by Arab nationalist leaders in Palestine, and various Arab heads of state in neighboring countries. Had these accepted the U.N. Partition, there might well have been no great violence whatever, and no expulsion of Arab Palestinians from their homes.

It gives me no difficulty at all to support the aspirations of both peoples involved for national statehood, nor to denounce bigotry when displayed by either side in this conflict, or crimes of war for that matter. It is, indeed, easier to abide by a unitary standard in such matters, than to gerry-mander a view that will call black white when done by one side, and white black when done by the other. Nor is it necessary for me to see something as all good to be worth support, or all bad to be worth opposing.

[Darranar]

108. Ethnic cleansing to some degree was required...

to make enough room in the region for all the immigrants expected to enter the Jewish state.

It was a subject that many early Zionists simply glossed over, but it was also something that the early leaders of Israel recognized.

Wholly legal methods were not sufficient, because many of the people living in the region very simply did not want to leave. However, it is true that most of early Zionism consisted of such means.

[MikeGalos]

110. Nonsense

The land was sparsely settled in the 1890s and there was both a large Jewish and large Arab influx of people in the early 20th Century.

There was NOT a forced expulsion of Arabs from Israel to make room for Jews. That is a flat out false history.

[pistoff democrat]

111. It is also one

of the 'big lies' on this forum.

[Darranar]

113. Yes, actually there was...

during the fighting between the UN GA decision and the end of the British mandate, and also during the War for Independence itself, there was much forced expulsion from a number of areas.

[MikeGalos]

114. Um

Care to document that canard? Who, for example, did this mythical expulsion? The British?

[Darranar]

115. No, the Zionist militant groups...

there was an unnofficial war going on then.

[MikeGalos]

116. Oh you mean the ones

who had their weapons siezed by the soon to take power Israeli government to make sure they didn't violate ben Gurion's "don't hurt any local Arabs" policy?

That's the same Ben Gurion government that sank a ship full of munitions they could have used to defend Israel against her neighbors rather than let the Irgun form their own army since they weren't dedicated to protecting the local Arab population. But, you knew that, right? (Kind of makes you wish Arafat had as much courage and concern for civilians as David ben Gurion did, doesn't it.)

You also knew that there really weren't any expulsions, right? Or at least you must have suspected when you couldn't find any real documentation to back up the charge...

How about the testimony by the Arab League spokesman before the British Parliament years after the war that manufactured stories about that kind of thing to stir up an Arab rebellion against the Jews despite there being no basis in fact. You knew about that, too, right?

[Darranar]

118. Oh, please...

The sinking of the Irgun weapons ship was to prevent a rift between the various militant groups that had joined together to form the IDF. It was a matter of self-preservation, not morality.

There were forced expulsions. It's called ethnic cleansing.

And I am also including the Hagganah in Zionist militant groups.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[MikeGalos]

123. Either document that

Or retract since it clearly is false.

[BlackFrancis]

164. Document that Ben-Gurion had some "don't hurt Arabs" order..

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

[BlackFrancis]

163. Altalena?

The Irgun was stronger than Zahal in Tel Aviv was all that was about.

Ben-Gurion wasn't about to risk losing military control.

[The Magistrate]

125. But You Have Merely Seconded My Point, Mr. Darranar

Prior to the hostilities in the wake of the U.N. vote for Partition, which actually commenced at the end of '47, there were no forcible expulsions, by any standard. Without those hostilities, there might well have been none. After all, the area set aside for the Jewish Zone contained about 800,00 persons; it must today contain perhaps four millions, which rather suggests there was sufficient room there for considerable immigration.

In the period prior to the Arab states' invasion, it was indeed Arab Nationalist policy that Arab residents absent themselves from the Jewish zone, as the Arab Nationalist leadership maintained that Arabs should never, and would never, submit to rule by Jews. In the intense fighting, certainly many fled for simple self-preservation. It is only in the latter stages of the war, in the late summer of '48, that real expulsions took place. All of this suggests that rather than a settled policy, there was a typical hardening of hearts and positions, such as normally accompanies war-fare, particularly brutal irregular warfare.

Without the decision of the Arab Nationalists to fight the Partition, there is no real reason to suppose anyone would have been driven by force from their homes.

It is also worth pointing out, if this matter is going to be seriously discussed, that there were indeed thousands of Jews driven from their homes in the fighting. "East Jerusalem", the Old City, was a largely Jewish enclave at the beginning of hostilities, and these people, after a bitter seige, were certainly forcibly expelled by Arab forces. Connoisseurs of irony will note that this is the portion of Jerusalem claimed today as Arab by advocates for Arab Palestine.

[Darranar]

130. There were going to be hostilities...

the question was who would instigate them first.

The Israeli leadership accepted the Partition as a means to an end. There were many advocates of a greater Israel encompassing all of the British Mandate as well as Transjordan, and very few of the Israeli leadership would accept the borders of the Partition as a permanent feature of the state, for mostly security reasons.

It is certainly true that the ethnic cleansing and expulsion was not a one-sided matter.

[The Magistrate]

146. That Is Possible, Sir

But my inclination is to doubt that Mr. Ben-Gurion would have instigated hostilities at that time, or tolerated their instigation by the Etzel. Mr. Ben-Gurion was one of the supreme pragmatic politicians of the last century, and it seems to me he would have clearly understood that to attack the Arab Zone at that time would have branded his new state an outlaw entity, and forfeited in a stroke the wide political support and good will it enjoyed in the world community, upon which its existence largely relied. He might well have felt his opponent's acceptance of the Partition had been a master-stroke against him, and felt rather trapped by it into a course that was not going to lead to all he desired, but he would, it seems most likely to me, have recognized that he had no choice but to play along. This is the man who, after all, urged Jews to support the Ottoman and not the English in the early stages of the Great War, and advised that Israel retire from the lands overrun in '67 immediately.

[BlackFrancis]

160. bad thing about Ben-Gurion is..

Everyone who has tried to write a decent biography on him says the same thing: It's impossible to know what he meant and when he was bullshiting. He contradicts himself with different audience all the way through his life. You can't even really believe his diary because he so clearly imagined the document as a historical one when he was writing it for the generations to come after him and revere him as a senior statesman.

[The Magistrate]

162. That, Mr. Francis

Is the mark of an excellent pragmatic politician. It is how a master plays the game.

[Darranar]

165. Well...

I agree that Ben Gurion would have likely avoided hostilities at that time because of the weakness of Israel's position. As you say, it was the pragmatic thing to do. However, it is certainly possible that that would not have lasted.

Ben Gurion may have been pragmatic, but he was certainly no moderate.

[dai]

97. "Odd. How do you explain that?"

Assuming this is not meant as a rhetorical question, I think this is a fair query that you've been making - and it hasn't really been answered.

And you're right, Israel is at the recieving end of a highly disproportional volume of criticism in comparison to other (generally much worse) human rights violators.

I think there are two factors affecting this:

(1) Given the large amounts of aid we give them and the close diplomatic ties between Israel and the U.S., the I/P issue is an American problem as well. In the eyes of many people, Israeli actions represent America as well - you may disagree with this perception, but I don't think you can debate it's existence. This is probably why (in the U.S.) I/P is discussed more than, say, Chechnya or Kashmir...and consequently one of the reasons Israel is criticised more often.

(2) A debate requires two sides, which is why more volatile issues are more active on discussion boards. There aren't many threads on the regressive policies of Saudi Arabia because we're all in agreement, so there really isn't any point. In the science forum, there are many threads on creation/evolution but none on...I dunno, gravity.

SA fits condition 1, since the royals recieve U.S. support - but not condition 2 because almost all of us here think they shouldn't (I assume). Chechnya fits condition 2 but not 1. Unfortunately, Israel fills both criteria - which leads to greater discussion and hence more criticism.

I don't think anti-Semitism is a motivating factor behind criticism of Israel, aside from for a narrow fringe.

Of course, I can only speak for myself - so if anyone wants to add their own perspective please do.

[MikeGalos]

103. That would only be valid IF

there were no support of European Union criticism of Israel since the EU gives LOT of money to the PA and little to Israel. But many here don't.

IF we criticised the ramifications of PA violations as they also meet both criteria. But many here don't.

IF we couched the discussions only in terms of funding for all countries that meet #1 and then admit that we're buying the right to set their country's policies like any good colonialist. But many here don't.

IF we set a level of funding support (in real terms including hidden money as we do with SA - and I note that you did) to qualify for #1 that doesn't just happen to magically only include Israel. But many here don't.

IF we actually DID all agree on what qualified under #2 but since people here have happily defended actions in other countries that they criticised when done by Israel, clearly we don't.

While you may not think that anti-Semitism is a motivating factor beyone a narrow fringe, you really don't seem to have much to base that on besides wishful thinking.

[dai]

126. Good point about the EU...

...I am not sure what their perspective is, hopefully someone on this board can answer. I'd like to believe they are not a population of Jew-haters, but this is largely speculation on my part..."wishful thinking" as you say.

---

IF we criticised the ramifications of PA violations as they also meet both criteria. But many here don't.

---

It is quite clear that our government (the U.S. I mean) is squarely on the side of Israel, through heavily disproportionate funding and diplomatic actions. This is why I don't put the PA in my first criteria.

---

IF we couched the discussions only in terms of funding for all countries that meet #1 and then admit that we're buying the right to set their country's policies like any good colonialist. But many here don't.

IF we set a level of funding support (in real terms including hidden money as we do with SA - and I note that you did) to qualify for #1 that doesn't just happen to magically only include Israel. But many here don't.

---

Personally I don't have an absolute level of funding at which I decide a country or government is U.S. supported, so I suppose my criteria are somewhat arbitrary. I would include the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan (now, but not under Clinton) to name a few - quite an unpleasant crew. So I am a more eager critic of these governments than, say, Iran - as my own nation is somewhat responsible for their policies. I understand I may still sound vague, I hope this clears up my position. Again, though, I am only speaking for myself.

---

IF we actually DID all agree on what qualified under #2 but since people here have happily defended actions in other countries that they criticised when done by Israel, clearly we don't.

---

You make a good point here.

If someone supports Russia's actions in Chechnya but criticises Israel, for instance, they may very well be biased against Jews. The only other possibility is that they are biased towards Russians. When I see this type of inconsistency, there may very well be anti-Semitism at work. I haven't seen it on this board, but I promise to take note if I do.

---

While you may not think that anti-Semitism is a motivating factor beyone a narrow fringe, you really don't seem to have much to base that on besides wishful thinking.

---

As is the case with a lot of bigotry, overt anti-Semitism is very rare. Some of Israel's critics may be secretly motivated by a hatred of Jews, and some of Israel's supporters may be secretly motivated by a hatred of Muslims - this is the problem with hidden motives: there is no easy way to prove or disprove them.

This is why I provided my 2 criteria, because you did ask a good question, and I hope you believe that I am being sincere in my answer.


*edited for formatting

[Cassandra]

36. Thanks, Mike, for this editorial

It says what I have been trying to say, in my imperfect way, since I arrived at I/P. The vehemence of the lip-curling disgust expressed against Israel here is something I actually find threatening, not just as a Jew but as a human being.

[pistoff democrat]

42. What else is there to say?

I'm putting this as a response to Cassandra rather than directly to the original post only because the balance of her message of appreciation is so true!

[rini]

95. Thank you

for expressing my feelings as well.

[Gimel]

98. This editorial helps

Yes, it puts a wedge between the anti-semites who disguise their intent by focusing on imperfect implementation of ideals. I know I have them, and I suspect every other human being has them as well. Nature abhors a vacuum, and thus there would never be a land without a people. True. There was a land without a government, however.

[dai]

70. To me, this is a very lazy argument...

...because about 95% of the article (there are a few anecdotes sprinkled in) makes assumptions about other people's secret motives. It is difficult to argue against, because there is no way to disprove one's "thinly veiled hatred of Jews", and it puts critics of Israel's policy on the defensive.

It is a similar argument to the claim that people opposed the Iraq war because they were secretly anti-American, and not genuinely against action in Iraq. It is a cheap attempt to change the direction of the discussion and silence critics.

The author is apparently aware of this tactic, although he denies he is doing it here (unsuccesfully if you want my opinion):

Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.

I don't buy it. If one is saying anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, the attempt to "gag critics" is quite apparent.

[bluesoul]

72. Excellent point

Dai!

[MikeGalos]

76. No it really doesn't claim motives

It DOES, however, raise some inherent bigotry in some of those stances that have yet to be answered.

Please, rather than raising the mythical "They'll call me an anti-Semite" screed, please, give us an example of something in the article that is classified as anti-Semitic that you say isn't.

Please. Just one. I'll be surprised if you can find one. And more surprised if you're willing to discuss why any example you find might actually be bigoted.

More likely, though, you are just trying to gag critics by a preemptive "'don't call me an anti-Semite' when nobody has" diversion from actual concern about bigotry. If that's the case, don't bother to reply.

[pistoff democrat]

89. 32 minutes and waiting...

eom

[dai]

121. Didn't know...

...I was on the clock ;-)

[dai]

119. I'm afraid I disagree,

it absolutely does claim motives. If there is, as you say, "inherent bigotry in some of those stances" then those stances are either (1) motivated by bigotry, or (2) coincidentally correllated with bigotry. The nature of an "inherent" condition means the causality can only go in one direction.

Please, rather than raising the mythical "They'll call me an anti-Semite" screed, please, give us an example of something in the article that is classified as anti-Semitic that you say isn't.

Please. Just one. I'll be surprised if you can find one.

There is no myth, the author of this article is very clearly labeling a position as "anti-Semite". What's more, even this very biased author agrees that this so-called "myth" occurs:

Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism.

As for anti-Semitic statement which I don't feel are anti-Semitic, take the paragraph comparing Israel tactics with Nazi tactics:

This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got.

The comparison between Israel and Nazi policies are completely hysterical, but they do not deny the Holocaust, nor do they provide retroactive justification. The author is reading into a statement in order to find hidden anti-Semitism. Millions of Russians were killed by the Nazis, but if I say the Russians are acting like a bunch of goddam Nazis in Chechnya - does that make me anti-Russian?

One more, following the paragraph with Noam Chomsky:

The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.

In this case, sympathy is dependent on political views. It is the same, no matter what one's race or religion is. Nobody is singling Jews out except for the author.

Other problems come from mis-stating anti-Zionist arguments to make them sound anti-Semitic:

Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation

This is quite an assumption is presented with no supporting evidence.

And more surprised if you're willing to discuss why any example you find might actually be bigoted.

You make a number of good points, so I am always willing to discuss.

More likely, though, you are just trying to gag critics by a preemptive "'don't call me an anti-Semite' when nobody has" diversion from actual concern about bigotry. If that's the case, don't bother to reply.

I am not sure how I have been "preemptive", I was responding to the Guardian article which was already written and posted. Unless you are saying that I am trying to gag critics of myself, which would mean you have an "actual concern" about my bigotry. I am somewhat confused by this last part.

Anyway, I have no problem with discussing bigotry and it is a very real problem. The problem I have is that the author is linking bigotry to criticism of Israel, and it is quite clear that he is trying to confer causality. This is where I see the diversion.

[MikeGalos]

122. And I totally disagree

If someone repeats something that is bigoted they may be misinformed or bigoted. The article doesn't attempt to go into their heads.

Next, again, find somebody calling anybody here an anti-Semite. Doesn't happen but the screaming about it occurs preemptively all the time. Perhaps that a guilty conscience. I don't know but I do know it happens a lot.

As for the Jews=Nazis argument, you example is hardly typical of what is usually seen. The example posited in the essay, is, however. Do you not think that saying Israel's policies show that Jews deserve what happened in the Holocaust is anti-Semitic? I suspect you do but perhaps you don't think that that has been said. It has.

Do you not think that saying the Holocaust was a fraud designed to create false sympathy for the Jews so they could blackmail Europe into supporting their war against the noble Palestinians isn't anti-Semitic? I doubt it, but it has been said.

Let's look at a few of your examples. You claim that it is NOT anti-Semitic to say that acceptance of the Jews being dependant on their not making nationalistic claims is not anti-Semitic. Can you name any other national group who anyone claims is not entitled to a nationalist movement - that anyone claims with a straight face should go back to being a minority population? Yet, we've seen that exact call made here on DU. That IS clearly anti-Semitism.

Please, look for cases where what the author has said is wrong. You've really focused not on disagreeing but with saying that the quotes and examples are unreasonble when any here with a reasonably long memory know they're not.

Also, please don't ignore the double standard of judgement. That is the real key. Why is it acceptable to demonize Israel for behavior that is better than that of the PA while yet praising the PA for behavior that would be condemned by any other people on earth? Why is that if not a questionable at best double standard based on questionable motives.

[dai]

136. The article does...

...go into the heads of anti-Zionists, this is quite apparent.

---

Next, again, find somebody calling anybody here an anti-Semite. Doesn't happen but the screaming about it occurs preemptively all the time. Perhaps that a guilty conscience. I don't know but I do know it happens a lot.

---

I understand this is against the forum rules to call someone an anti-Semite. What do you mean by "guilty conscience"?

---

As for the Jews=Nazis argument, you example is hardly typical of what is usually seen. The example posited in the essay, is, however. Do you not think that saying Israel's policies show that Jews deserve what happened in the Holocaust is anti-Semitic? I suspect you do but perhaps you don't think that that has been said. It has.

---

Anybody who says that Jews deserved the Holocaust is an anti-Semite.

---

Do you not think that saying the Holocaust was a fraud designed to create false sympathy for the Jews so they could blackmail Europe into supporting their war against the noble Palestinians isn't anti-Semitic? I doubt it, but it has been said.

---

This is also an anti-Semitic comment, but it doesn't prove either anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic unless one makes this statement.

---

Let's look at a few of your examples. You claim that it is NOT anti-Semitic to say that acceptance of the Jews being dependant on their not making nationalistic claims is not anti-Semitic. Can you name any other national group who anyone claims is not entitled to a nationalist movement - that anyone claims with a straight face should go back to being a minority population? Yet, we've seen that exact call made here on DU. That IS clearly anti-Semitism.

---

Many ethnic and religious groups are denied their own nation. This happened when I grew up during the Khalistan movement. There are many considerations in the creation of a new state for ethnic reasons, as transferring populations is most unpleasant business.

---

Please, look for cases where what the author has said is wrong. You've really focused not on disagreeing but with saying that the quotes and examples are unreasonble when any here with a reasonably long memory know they're not.

---

Rest assured that I disagree with what the author is saying. My last post should make this clear.

---

Also, please don't ignore the double standard of judgement. That is the real key. Why is it acceptable to demonize Israel for behavior that is better than that of the PA while yet praising the PA for behavior that would be condemned by any other people on earth? Why is that if not a questionable at best double standard based on questionable motives.

Yes, I agree. A double standard may reflect anti-Semitism. I'm not sure what PA behavior is being praised, nor do I agree that criticism of Iraeli policy amounts to "demonizing" Israel, so I don't know how to answer your question - although I suspect it is a rhetorical question in any event.

[The Magistrate]

128. Two Small Points, Mr. Dai

First, given the various uncertainties underlying all verbal communication, the exercise requires in all instances some surmise about a speaker's motivations. There is nothing wrong with examining the implications of speech, and doing the author the courtesy of assuming the whole of what is said is what is meant. No communication can take place otherwise. In a matter such as this, where person's have some interest in veiling their resort to, or possible influence by, bigotry and prejudice, it is sometimes adviseable to point out where words do clearly suggest such influences.

Second, the statement that equation of Israel to the Reich in effect justifies or diminishes the Hitlerite crimes seems to me a very reasonable one. Certainly the triviality of Israeli actions compared to those of Hitler means that any equation of them is another way of saying what Hitler did was not so bad after all. Your analogy to Russia in Chechnya is a poor one: Russian actions there are quite similar to Hitlerite practices in the line of partisan suppression, and comparison to, say, Imperial Japan in China, or Franco in Spain, would be similarly apt.

[dai]

132. Well said, Sir

:)

First, I wanted to tell you how much I've appreciated your well reasoned arguments and unmatched skill with language. I always look forward to your posts, ever since my lurking days.

For your first point, I largely agree with you and even made a few assumptions about the authors motivations myself; let's call this irony and not hypocrisy ;) Bush says WMD, but means oil...there, I did it again.

Sometimes such an exercise is applicable, but often it is a mere act of desperation. "Opposing Bush mean supporting terror", I suspect we will hear a lot of this as the election grows near. In the instance of this article, the accusation is very direct and applied at a very broad group: "Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism". The support was very weak, amounting to little more than a handful of anecdotes which are not representative of anti-Zionists. The rest is assumptions built on an active imagination...it reminded me of Peggy Noonan, but that is just my impression.

Your second point is a good one as well, but I think we disagree on the motives for comparisons to Nazi tactics. If the purpose were to diminish the suffering of the Holocaust, then any non-analgous comparison to Hitler would be anti-Semitic. Instead, I think the point is to exagerrate the transgressions of Israel. Equating the two is inappropriate and foolish, as I said previously, but not anti-Semitic.

The purpose of my Russia/Chechnya analogy was to illustrate that applying the Nazi label to a nation's policy does not confer animosity towards that group. I wouldn't even paint a swastika on Russian actions in that region, and certainly not the IDF, but even if I did - it would not mean I were either an anti-Russian or anti-Semite repectively.

[The Magistrate]

145. In My View, Sir

Equating Israel to the Reich, while certainly, as you say, innappropriate and foolish, is grounds at least to suspect a person is moved by bigotry into the bargain. There is a quality of impudent slander about the doing, that must be apparent to anyone familiar with the two phenomenon, which makes a real appeal to the bigotted. It is not enough by itself for proof, but it will certainly cause me to look a fellow up and down with a jaundiced eye.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

134. Heh...

I do. But if I posted it my post would get deleted so once you can assure me that you've gotten permission from the mods for me to point out the accusation of anti-semitism I saw on the old DU1, then let me know and I'll refresh yr memory :)

Violet...

[edzontar]

138. Well I haven't kept a log for myself....

But I have my wounds.

I'd go into it further, but you will note my quickly deleted message above.

[Cassandra]

141. And when you do...

I'll post the suggestion by a long gone DUer in a very old thread that the solution to the I/P problem was to kill all the Jews in Israel.(whenever I can find the DU1 link) Some of us who've been here a while have had to endure all manner of insults and idiotic comments, compared to which, being called anti-Semitic seems a mild epithet.

[Violet_Crumble]

149. Go for yr life, Cassy...

Not quite sure what yr point would be, as I don't recall anyone making any claim other than the one that no-one in this forum has ever been accused of anti-semitism. I dunno, are you claiming the people who have been accused of it *are* anti-semites who made comments about wanting to kill all Jews? I'm one of the 'some of us' who's been here a while and had to endure all manner of insults and idiotic comments, compared to which, being called anti-Semitic seems a mild epithet. Remember? Not that being called anti-Semitic should be no big deal. It's meant to be insulting, especially when aimed at people who find anti-semitism and all forms of bigotry repugnant. The problem is that when it gets thrown around about things that aren't anti-semitic, like criticism of Israels policies in the Occupied Territories, for example, or as I most recently learnt from the now-tombstoned Hossdiddy, that opposing the wall being built where it was is anti-semitic, then some of the power the term carries starts to vanish and people will just start shrugging their shoulders and not giving a shit whether they're called it or not, because if the meaning has changed into something completely different, then there's no real biggy being called an ant-semite for things like opposing the path of the wall...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

154. You're very garbled today, Violet

Have you crumbled?
Some people here sound more anti-Semitic than they know, in language, if not in intent. We would simply like some to look at the language they use and see if they aren't giving a nastier impression of themselves than they intended. Those that actually are anti-Semitic, eventually cross the line in an obvious way (and are banned), but by then they have insulted and unnerved a lot of us. The preemptive claim that anti-Semitism is about to be charged is particularly insulting, especially when no charge would have been forthcoming, and serves merely to stroke the egos of those who like to pretend they are warriors warding off real danger.

[bluesoul]

155. How about those

vicious anti-Muslim anti-Palestinian folks? Luckily some also did infact get banned (tombstoned) here...

[Cassandra]

156. How many have there been, really?

Pro-Israel is not necessarily anti-Muslim or Anti-Palistinian, whereas I'm not sure I've ever seen someone who was strongly pro-Palestinian who wasn't also anti-Israel, usually in very harsh language. (Was that a coherent sentence?)

[bluesoul]

157. Quite a few

Oh so pro-Israel is not anti-Muslim, while those pro-Palestinians are anti-Israel or more extreme then those on the other side. That's what you are saying, many would disagree...

[edzontar]

152. I think that one predates my own period of activity...

And anyway, if the post was as you describe it, it would be a clear case of hateful bigotry.

What I object to are spurious charges...and there IS a difference.

[MikeGalos]

105. Nope

No accusations have been made.

It isn't, however, surprising for an op-ed about anti-Semitism to discuss anti-Semitism.

And it isn't surprising that any discussion on here about anti-Semtism leads to baseless charges about mythical people making mythical accusations.

But, please, feel free to point out where somebody's been called an anti-Semite.

[edzontar]

124. How about.....

"The reason for hammering this out is that I've seen a LOT of definitions of anti-Semitism here on I/P that are so wildly racist themselves that nothing short of leadership in the actual Nazi Party qualified."

Or did I miss the thrust of this comment?

By the way, the post that was alerted and deleted referenced people on this board being accused of anti-semitism.....

I certainly have ben so accused...and more than once, by people on this board who knew better, but who were trying to discredit me personally in order to advance thier own arguments.

I would not say this is an experience unique to myself.

[dfong63]

127. the opinion piece is wrong, misguided, and ultimately irrelevant

anti-semitism is a red herring. the real issue is that Israel has stolen Palestinian lands. that ongoing theft, is both illegal and immoral. whatever other beliefs may or not be held by the proponents of the Palestinian cause, are completely irrelevant.

if someone mugs you and steals your wallet, can they justify their crime by saying "It's OK because he's a racist"? of course not. yet that's just what the apologists for Israel continually try to do.

the only relevance of anti-semitism here is that Israel's blatant thievery and brutality is CAUSING more anti-semitism.

[The Magistrate]

129. Not Really, Mr. Fong

The article makes some excellent points, however uncomfortable those points might be to persons accustomed to extremities of expression in support of Arab Palestine. The motivation behind actions is a factor of great importance: it has been well said that the natural use of human reason is the support of human prejudice, and there are many instances where people begin with prejudices and grasp up facts or reasonable positions to both support and disguise same.

[edzontar]

131. But we must note the unfortunate tone of too many of the responses..

here...

And the field of deletions that pepper this thread (including my own earlier lamentation on this theme), which only goes to show that there are many who refuse to see any difference at all between criticism of Israeli policy and what they call anti-semitism.

Indeed, I am afraid the the true and relentless goal of most of the latest wave of rhetoric about a "new" anti-semitism (from Dershowitz, Sharon, and the rest) is to try to discredit any and all criticism of Israeli policies as the product of anti-semitic bigotry.

[newyorican]

135. I have seen no proof that is not the case either...

pretty spot on...

[edzontar]

137. Thank you.....

I really do despair over this poisonous state of affairs....

[The Magistrate]

144. There Is Something To That, Mr. Zontar

The hard-liners of each side will pick up whatever clubs lay handy, and an allegation of bigotry can save a good deal of effort in refutation, or even self-examination, by cutting off an opposing argument at the root: bigots, after all, hardly need to be taken seriously. Those who advocate for Israel find a mirror of this often being applied to their arguments: attempts to point out flaws in the conduct or positions of the various Arab and Islamic opponents of Israel are frequently greeted with charges that such expressions simply reflect bigotry against Arabs and Islam, and it is not unheard for support of Israel to be described as being rooted in nothing more than the grip on the advocate of Eurocentric or colonialist attitudes.

My view is that there is a great deal of ground for legitimate criticism of both sides in this matter, but that undeniably some criticism of each side is rooted in bigotry against the side being criticized, whether personally felt, or by calculated appeal to bigoted stereotype and predisposition wide-spread in the populace. Some of the pug-marks of this, as it relates to criticism of Israel, are ablely laid out by the author Mr. Galos has cited. From the other side, a presentation that denies or ignores legitimate grievances of the people of Arab Palestine, suggesting in effect that they are moved solely by unreasoning hate, is a thing that requires at least a closer look at the motive of the person making such a presentation.

[Cassandra]

143. You believe that because you want to

"Indeed, I am afraid the the true and relentless goal of most of the latest wave of rhetoric about a "new" anti-semitism (from Dershowitz, Sharon, and the rest) is to try to discredit any and all criticism of Israeli policies as the product of anti-semitic bigotry."

Why don't you try asking what it is that concerns us when you think you are actually being accused (as opposed to mere anticipation)? You might find out that it's not the criticism but the way it's phrased that is disturbing us. That would be more condusive to mutual understanding than assuming we're all a bunch of loons.

[edzontar]

153. You have a point--but i think the arguments could be better framed...

For example, the piece above, while I don't agree with every single point, seems to me to represent a more thhoughtful framing of the issues that concern you than, say, the recent statements of Mr. Sharon.

In general, I believe that that charges of bigotry are thrown around too freely in this debate.

[brainshrub]

139. The way I see it is like this:

Generally speaking: Jews are to Zionism like Christians are to Catholics.

All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic. All Zionists are Jewish, but not all Jews are Zionist.

You can be against the actions of the Catholic Church, and not be against Christians. You can criticize Zionism and not harbor any ill-will toward Jews.

I know my analogy is not perfect. But it's the framework I use when I think about Zionism & the Jewish faith.

[brainshrub]

140. I'm against the actions of Isreal

and I don't fit into this category. (Especially the last sentence)

the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?

Since so many of my tax dollars go to Israel, I think I have a right in speaking out against the occupation of Palestine. I don't like Jewish-conspiracy theories either...they are nothing more than hyperbolic ranting from a minority of pseudo-intellectual sophomores.

But I see many legitimate reasons to bring Israel to task for what they are doing. I think the Israeli government has a knee-jerk reaction to criticism that will hurt it in the long run.

I oppose the occupation of Palestine, not because I hate Jews...but because I feel that if Israel does not make peace with it's neighbors, when US support goes away, they will be wiped into the sea. And that thought disturbs me.

[dudeness]

147. you know

when i was growing up (in the 60s and 70s) i always thought that i would love to experience time in israel , living in a kibbutz, sharing with all the people whom would be attracted to such a concept.. thats what israel was to me , a concept. yes, based around a particular religion, but also based around freedom , love , caring etc..thats what it was to me,, i didnt care too much about anything else..but now ,that seems to have devolved into arguments about land , who has a right to what etc..droll boring shit , in my opinion, i want to see the israel i wanted to live in come back..stop the killing. make peace with the palestinians..lets move forward together..

[Classical_Liberal]

148. Too many generalizations

He says his gripe is with antizionist, then mentions criticisms of those who are merely opposed to the settlements.

[BlackFrancis]

161. oh, horseshit..

Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.

Noam and his "imitators" are quite obviously zionists themselves of the sort that Herzl intended and which nearly every other "anti-zionist" I've ever come across is. If Israel's conquest and mistreatment of the Palestinians is what is required for Jews to "behave as a nation" then fuck them right in the ear and I'm glad to be a anti-semite.