It doesn't take much to be called anti-semitic these days...

Remove all ads!

http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/710209.html

From the book "The Case for Peace" by Alan Dershowitz

[ May 05, 2006, 21:43: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Those all sound pretty straightforward to me. You may want to detail your intensions for this thread.

 

He's referring to the fact that Israel is calling Sweden Anti-Semitic for disagreeing with them......something that has nothing to do with their religion.

 

Disagreeing with Israel's foreign policy or their treatment of Palestinian's has nothing to do with Judaism (or any other religion) but it seems to me that Israel is rather quick to shout "Anti-Semitism" when what is actually being displayed is "Anti-Israelism"

 

Of course they are, because it's extremely convenient for them to conflate the two. It's very good for stifling criticism.
"You hate Jews!"
"No I don't, I--"
"You hate Jews!"
"But..."
"Shut up, Nazi!"
"That isn't--"
"Hey! We don't like Nazis here, go away!"
"Right, screw this, I'm leaving"

 

Amen, it is a cheap cop out Israel (or parts of the Israeli political spectrum and supporters worldwide) use at any sign of disagreement or even non-compliance with Israeli demands.

This was spurred by the invitation to some Palestinian officals (ie Hamas dudes ie evil terrorists ie crazy muslim fanatics, of the last two description I think only the last one can be applied without individual knowledge) by a Palestinian organisation in Sweden and the fact that the Swedish government saw no harm in that and granted visas and stuff iirc. The problem is that this happened at roughly the same time as Sweden pulled out of an international military excersice because Israel was going to join in. Sweden has an official (albeit a hypocritical) neutral stance in world politics and did not want to participate in the same excersice as Israel for the alleged reason that Swedish forces would never be deployed together with Israeli and that there thus was no reason for them to practice together.

There have also been other occurances in the past which Israel has deemed to be anti-semitic in nature, biggest one was when an artist made an installtion of plasticfoam boats with pictures of suicide bombers floating in a pool of red colored water. In the artist and most others eyes an illustration about the pointlessness of it all and some other artsy fartsy talk but the Israeli ambassador went berserk and tried to wreck the installation and much diplomacy ensued.

All too often the Isaeli stance on many many things remind of the Arab reaction to the silly images published in a Danish newspaper.

 

Aren't the Arab-speaking people also semitic? I'm pretty sure the language itself is semitic.

 

@Ofelix: You are technically correct. However, in the modern vernacular, anti-semitic has taken on a different, less inclusive, meaning.

 

First, my mum has her MA in Hebrew studies and I had a huge interest in Israeli ancient history in my secondary school, and I've been planning to join an NWN PW server set in ancient Israel ( ), so I'm not your yet another noob who knows nothing and hates everything. I don't have a lasting deep-rooted etc problem with whatever the state of Israel does and I respect the nation a whole damn lot for the perseverance and resourcefulness (which sort of a mythologised trait but if I think it does apply in general, so don't take it as patronising if you're inclined to, please... it's rare that I praise a whole nation for something). But:

1. Employing stereotypes against Israel that have traditionally been directed against "the Jews". For example, portraying Israel as devouring the blood of children or characterising Israeli leaders with long hook noses or rapacious looks.

Come on... Who does that, seriously? And caricatures of Jews with hook noses are as valid as exaggerated French or Russian features or Poles with vodka bottles or the French with baguettes or Englishmen in gridded trousers.

2. Comparing Israel to the Nazis or its leaders to Hitler, the German army, or the Gestapo.

I'm sorry but what sometimes happens in Palestinian settlements when the Israeli units march in looks like what Germans did in WW2. And some expressions on the face of some Israeli soldiers in the photographs of some such actions resemble what I've seen on the faces of Nazis in photographs. It's no accident that people draw such comparisons and the state of Israel is not without fault in it.

3. Characterising Israel as "the worst", when it is clear that this is not an accurate comparative assessment.

Clear, accurate? Eh, who's going to judge that? I agree on principle, of course, but who will judge it? What does this clause serve?

4. Invoking anti-Jewish religious symbols or caricaturing Jewish religious symbols.

Religious symbols should never be caricatured, period. This also includes crucifixes just in case a Jewish artist who doesn't like star of David caricatures comes up with an idea. Mocking religions is wrong, period. And what is an anti-Jewish religion symbol? A crucifix, perhaps? Should we rewrite the Gospel and pretend Jesus was crucified in Rome or something?

5. Singling out only Israel for sanctions for policies that are widespread among other nations, or demanding that Jews be better or more moral than others because of their history as victims.

Just where is Israel singled out for sanctions? Do any sanctions apply to Israel apart from some Arab countries not wanting to talk?

I demand that Jews be better or moral if they consider themselves so. This means that if Israeli politicians, social activists or vocal citizens claim any sort of moral or historical or whatever high ground, they should display it. I demand the same of anyone who claims to be Christian and calls on it. Especially Catholic, which I am. So bugger off before calling me a racist for this one.

6. Discriminating against individuals only because they are Jewish Israelis, without regard to their individual views or actions.

I don't care if they are Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist or Polish or German or Russian or French if they do their job right. But please STFU about being Jewish or Polish or American or whatever and deserving special treatment because of your nationality and your nation's history.

7. Emphasizing and stereotyping certain characteristics among supporters of Israel that have traditionally been used in anti-Semitic attacks, for example, "pushy" American Jews, Jews "who control the media", and Jews "who control financial markets".

If Jews controlled the media or financial markets or were pushy, it would be perfectly viable and accurate to point it out. While I believe most American Jews are great folks to talk to and deal with, some American Jewish organisations are way beyond pushy and even the Israeli Jews (such as prof. Shevah Weiss, the former ambassador to Poland and Knesset chairman) tell them to STFU. It's just sometimes European media blow them out of proportion by giving them more attention than they have in the USA or in Israel. There was, for example, one such guy who got out of his skin to criticise Poland and Poles and the media here gave him some wide attention, while in Israel people didn't even know who he was. I believe it's unfair to judge the whole nation by such individuals, but their existence shouldn't be denied, either. Can't we just conclude that Israel is a country like any other and Jews are a nation like any other and STFU about the whole thing? I'm getting tired of the whining on all sides of the debate.

8. Blaming all Jews or "the Jews" for Israel's policies or imperfections.

Eh. The sentence above is a perfect example of spiteful political propaganda. The use of quotation marks, as well as the forceful differentiation between all Jews and '"the Jews"'. Someone should get a life. And it's not like Israel is independent from Jews, for decency's sake.

9. Physically or verbally attacking Jewish institutions, such as synagoges or cemetries, as a means of protesting against Israel.

I think dragging ugly things into daylight is equally legitimate an all sides of a verbal conflict. Taking it out on the dead or cemeteries is completely and utterly awful, though. However, attacking religious institutions and figures is perfectly mutual if we pair Jewish nationalists and anti-Jewish xenophobes together. I'll just say it's wrong no matter who does it.

10. Stereotyping all Jews as fitting into a particular political configuration (such as "neo-conservatives", Zionists, or supporters of Sharon).

WTF? Come on. If I had to associate influential Jewish environments with any single political option or move or alliance, it wouldn't be neocons. Besides, if Jews are leaning conservative, good for them. Being generally rational, calm, collected and standing up for moral values is what I respect them for, so STFU, please.

11. Accusing Jews and only Jews for dual loyalty.

Whoever has ties with two states, is subject to loyalty conflicts. Same goes for immigrants from all ethnic groups that don't want to blend in and assimilate too much but rather safeguard their separate identities. In case of strong isolationism of any given minority, as well as a conflict of interest with the majority, dual loyalty will come up.

12. Blaming Israel for the problems of the world and exaggerating the influence of the Jewish state on world affairs.

Come on. Firstly, no one does that seriously. Secondly, there's no denying that Israel is more influential than the typical country of that size. But it's not like all Jewish organisations or activists worldwide are in the employ of the state of Israel. If they were, I believe there would be actually much less extremism, verbal violents and hostility outbursts on the part of the more militant of them, because while the state of Israel doesn't exactly fight in white gloves, it wants peace and good relations wherever and whenever possible. So...

13. Denying, minimizing, or trivializing the Holocaust as part of a campaign against Israel.

Correct. But there's a difference between undermining the Holocaust as historical and cultural matter and being fed up with it being blamed on you whener and whatever about you disagree with anyone with any Jewish ties. I'm also fed up with the attempts of some Jewish organisations to blame the Holocaust on Poland because it was built on Polish land conquered by the Nazis. So what that the Poles knew? Were conquered and defeated peasants and city workers supposed to attack the camps with bare hands? Many, many Poles saved many, many Jews and/or died trying. And our spies and politicians kept informing and warning major allied power leaders of the whole thing throughout the whole time but it was dismissed as rubbish. Jews were left alone to their fate by major allied powers, not by Poles. And Poles were betrayed the same way in Yalta. So please STFU and read up. Argh.

14. Descriminating against only Israel in its qualifications for certain postitions or statuses, such as on the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and the International Red Cross.

As qualified as any other country. Definitely not less. And definitely not more in case someone's fathoming that kind of claim.

15. Blaming the Jews or Israel, rather than the anti-Semites, for anti-Semitism or for increases in anti-Jewish attitudes.

How convenient. Hostilities and conflicts typically have two sides. By this I'm not saying that violent outbursts have ever been justified, but I'm saying that some anti-Semitics attitudes are in a very close relationship with personal experience with some Jewish organisations or institutions or whatever. Of course it's wrong to blame such things on the whole of the nation. But it's also wrong to use anti-Semitism as the universal scapegoat and explanation for everything.

16. Taking extreme pleasure from Israeli failures, imperfections, or troubles.

It presupposes people care really much and that assumption is quite arrogant if you want my opinion. Myself, I generally don't care until my attention is somehow attracted.

17. Falsely claiming that all legitimate criticism of Israeli policies is immediately and widely condemned by Jewish leaders as anti-Semitic, despite any evidence to support this accusation.

Nice piece of babble, now let's speak English, shall we? First, has anyone ever noticed that Arabs are Semites too? Second, all criticism is not always condemned immediately, widely etc. But most criticism ends up condemned and whatever you say and however you criticise, you will always end up labelled an anti-Semite unless you prove you have sufficient Jewish roots yourself. I've been called a philosemite by some people and an anti-Semite by other people for the same paragraph in one debate once!

18. Denying that even core anti-Semitism - racial stereotypes, Nazi coparisons, desecration of synagoges, Holocaust denial - qualifies as anti-Semitic.

WTF? And why do we have to keep up and maintain the whole construct of anti-Semitism? Racial hatred is always racial hatred and it's equally wrong against Jews as against black or Asian people or whites, for that matter. Besides, Arabs are Semites too. Besides, all people are equal and Jews are no worse and no better than anyone. Desecration of synagogues is bad, but desecration of any temples or churches or mosques anywhere is bad. Any racial hatred is bad.

19. Seeking to delegitimate Israel precisely as it moves towards peace.

What?

20. Circulating wild charges against Israel and Jews, such as that they were responsible for the September 11 attacks, the anthrax attacks, and the 2005 tsunami.



My coffee machine broke half a year ago...

(If anyone feels offended, it isn't intentional and please feel free to PM me to clarify.)

 

It's not the first time. The last Ambassador before this one that Israel had in Sweden was sent home after KPML(r) (now KP) took up several charges that the Israeli government was responsible for, including things such as sonic bombs and the like, and the Ambassador had nothing to come with, except calling the anti-semites, nazi supporters, and gullible idiots of Islamic Lying Propaganda. He then stormed out, and was sent home the next week.

 

I would have to imagine this has considerably more application to Europe then the United States. Israel is an extension of the US's political goals in the Middle East so people over here tend to more often then not rally around Israel. Hence we typically get the view point that Israel is completely innocent of wrong doing in it's dealing with the Palestinians, that the conflict is completely one sided; that the Israeli Government has already done its share. The guilt's just not two sided as it should be.

 

The US is actually more anti-semitic than Europe. Europe attempts to remain more or less neutral regarding the situation in Israel and Palestine. The US, by supporting Israel and condemning Palestine, is being anti-semitic towards Palestine if you want to get technical.

 

So you notice Arabs and Palestinians are also Semites? I don't really like the anti-Semite denominator because of the narrowing down to Jews only. Or like when you say someone has Semite features. Or you call someone Semite or philosemite. But Arabs are also Semites, as are Palestinians and were Babylonians and Assyrians.

 

what if i said israel is a state propped up by the colonial powers after world war 2 and denied the palistine state of independence, instead it is given to the zionists and that the current feud between israel and palistine is legitimate. is this considered anti semetic?


or what if i said that israel is not a legitimate nation?

 

As long as you backed it up with the stuff you said before the text I quoted, I'd say accusations of Anti-semitism wouldn't really be warranted.

 

And what if I pointed out in return that the only thing stopping the Israelis from overwhelming, crushing military defeats of Egypt and the other Arab states in the wars of last century was the swift intervention of the UN?

 

what if i told you that that action would lead to more anti semetism and would undermine the idealogy of zionism

 

What exactly is a 'legitimate nation' anyway?

 

As an Arabic linguist, I certainly understand the claims against the validity of the nation of Israel. It is true, after all, that we took the land from Palestine and gave it to people who, for the most part, didn't even live there. As a pragmatist, I would be remiss not to also point out that Israel is there now.....and that we can't just dissolve the nation of Israel. I am not unsympathetic towards the terror attacks to which Israel is so frequently subjected. On the other hand, I am not unaware of the fact that Israel kills 10 Palestinians for every Israeli killed or that the Palestinians are starving and desperate.....and getting no help from Israel, who is largely responsible for their current plight. The cycle of violence isn't going to stop until they stop pointing fingers at each other and start listening to each other, instead.

[ June 13, 2006, 23:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

@Harbs: Any nation is legitimate. Calling a nation illegitimate is just an excuse to keep the land and not let them live on their own.

And I have to agree with Drew.

@Rally: Well, yes, Israel pwned them. The UN... well, when Israel went along with the Brits and the French for the Suez Channel, it was all right, but otherwise bad bad, so that's about it so far as UN's neutrality goes. On the other hand, some balance has to be there and the UN sort of guards that balance. Even if Israel could defeat all neighbours, occupying the territory and also maintaining a standing army to repell invasion would be quite an impossible stretch for the limited population. That, and power doesn't give right. When the Palestinians say they had nothing to do with the Holocaust and they are supposed to pay for it with their land and homes and even blood sometimes, because the West gave Jews the land to thwart the feeling of guilt for giving them up to Hitler, then they have a point there. After all, Allies did know about the concentration camps because Polish military intelligence had been reporting those since the very beginning, but they chose not to listen. I've even heard about ships with Jews being turned away from Palestine during the war. After WW2, it was easy because the administration was in British hands, so it could be handed over swiftly.

@Drew: Before the beginning of the state of Israel in 1948, while Palestine was under British administration, the Palestinians didn't have a monopoly on terrorism. Let's take the assassination of the UN mediator, Count Bernadotte from Sweden, as an example.