'Some anti-Israel rhetoric is absolutely anti-Semitic' (SF Mayor Newsom)

[oberliner]

Some of the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist rhetoric in the San Francisco Bay Area is simple anti-Semitism, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post Sunday.

Newsom, in the country for four days as part of a large San Francisco Jewish Community Federation delegation, said he expected to see some people protesting against his trip here when he gives a commencement address next week at San Francisco State University.

The university was the site of some of the ugliest anti-Israel protests in the US during the second intifada, with some pro-Palestinian protesters chanting "Hitler didn't finish the job" and "Die, racist pigs" at a pro-Israel rally in 2002.

Asked how he answered his constituents who argue he should not be visiting Israel at a time when it is "oppressing the Palestinians" and "bombing Gaza," Newsom said, "I think of the old adage, 'Seek first to understand, then to be understood.'

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1209627010504&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[msongs]

1. too bad he did'nt use "..the old adage" with his wife nt

[Jed Dilligan]

2. Fuck Newsom and the horse he rode in on

Corrupt lying philandering preppie asshole.

[kayecy]

3. And is this guy going to visit Gaza?

Asked how he answered his constituents who argue he should not be visiting Israel at a time when it is "oppressing the Palestinians" and "bombing Gaza," Newsom said, "I think of the old adage, 'Seek first to understand, then to be understood.'

And is this guy going to visit Gaza and the West bank to 'Seek first to understand'?

[LeftishBrit]

4. Well, I certainly don't think that all anti-Israel or anti-Zionist rhetoric is antisemitic...

but obviously *some* is.

I don't see how a slogan like "Hitler didn't finish the job" can be described as anything other than horribly antisemitic. Really quite scary!

[Boojatta]

5. Users of that slogan could have interesting debates with

sincere holocaust deniers, presuming that there are any sincere holocaust deniers.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Glad that's settled! nt

[Lithos]

7. Course it is true

Some of it is, just like some of the anti-Palestinian commentary is really a disguise for anti-Muslim bigotry. Do I think such language is essential or a core part of any criticism against Israel or Palestine? Of course not. Even so, it is still something which is common enough that diligence and responsibility are essential to ensure such bigoted commentary is called for what it is.

L-

[bemildred]

8. I think it would be nice to distinguish between criticism of X and anti-X rhetoric too.

Whether or not one thinks X needs to be criticized is a different issue from whether on not one thinks X needs to be done away with, although the two things are not entirely unrelated.

[Lithos]

9. Yes, it would be nice

Though a fair amount of bigoted commentary from what I've seen is almost always couched in terms of some other "positive" thing. Xenophobic, anti-immigration is stated in terms of protecting jobs and our borders from terrorists, etc.

L-

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

11. I've seen it on both sides. About Jews and about Arabs/Muslims.

There's a great deal of prejudice to go round. Unfortunately.

'There are some here who would might make th case that it's anti-semitic to criticize Israel for human rights abuses, unless one criticizes ALL nations who abuse human rights'

I do think that it is biased to imply that Israel is the only or worst human-rights abuser in the world. And this has sometimes been done on DU. It's not necessarily anti-semitic: often it's more a case of "The American government supports Israel; Bush is evil; therefore Israel must be more evil than other countries". For that matter, it is biased in the same sort of way when righties condemn human rights abuses in their current bogeynation - at the moment, usually Iran - while ignoring them elsewhere.

An example of what I'd call clear anti-semitism is a post that someone made on another DU forum (since deleted, I think): "It's time we got the Jewish influence out of our government."

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

13. I prefer "It's time everyone had fair and equal access to government".

Which is democratic, doesn't single anyone out, and true. I'm not quite sure what "equal" means in this regard, but it's clear enough that some people are far more equal than others when it comes to having a voice in government.

I think that everyone discriminates, it is necessary to get on with your life, but nobody ever considers themselves a bigot. Whenever you speak of collectives ("Arabs", "Jews") as though they were individuals with intentions and motives and will, you are probably toying with bigotry. Bigotry can be positive as well as negative, the notion that certain groups are better than others, are crazy drivers, can't handle liquor, control the world financial system, are lazy or ignorant, are good with money. These are all individual traits, not traits of groups.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. I don't think it's a matter of equal access, but reasonable influence.

I think that Israel's "interests" are way too huge a priority in the US gov't. From what I can see, our "special relationship" does not bring much home. They spy on us for Christ's sake.

It's a juggernaut that has to be brought back down to appropriate dimension.

Is it anti-semitic to observe that? I don't think so.

[bemildred]

17. That is a long discussion, which I am not up for now.

However, I see nothing wrong with questioning the way the US supports Israel, or what the US' relationship to Israel ought to be, or generally anything about that, as long as one minds one language, so to speak. It is certainly the business of any US citizen to consider such issues, and to form his or her own opinions about them. It is not a taboo subject, and ought not be.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. Sounds reasonable enough! nt

[LeftishBrit]

14. It would depend which 'forces' were meant...

it could refer to Christian Zionists, or to Americans who think that Israel is an important base for their interests, as well as to Jews. So, not necessarily.

However, I am always a bit uncomfortable about vague references to undesirable 'forces' in politics, with possible implications of disloyalty by those who hold a different view. I would prefer that sentence phrased as, "There are people in our political system who consider that supporting the government of Israel is very much in our country's interests. I disagree with that, and would like to see the alternative views expressed more." Such a comment leaves the matter open to debate and agreement and disagreement by people on all sides of it, without implying that people who disagree with one are (whether for ethnic reasons or otherwise) supporting another country against their own in a disloyal fashion.

Incidentally, if I were saying something like that in my country over the last few years, it would probably be: "There are people in our political system who consider that supporting the government of AMERICA is very much in our country's interests. I disagree with that, and would like to see the alternative views expressed more." I don't even consider such a statement as anti-American; whereas saying, "It's time to get the American influence away from our government" could be seen as such.

[Vegasaurus]

15. There are forces that push for a lot of other interests

such as the gun lobby, the big oil corporates (and we should look to them as the true muddlers in the Middle East, not the Israeli lobby, which is dwarfed in comparison to oil), drug lobbies, etc.

The fact is, in a free market system, money talks.

In America, the influential lobbies play a big role in American policy and law.

This will continue to be true as long as we have the current political system.

The Israeli lobby is far less influential than some of the more powerful lobbies.

If people are upset about the interests of the US in the middle east, they should go after the oil barons, who are far more influential than those pesky Jews.