The true test of anti-semitism

[yurbud]

Whenever someone claims a criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, there is an easy way to tell if it is: substitute the name of any other country in the statement about Israel and see if it sounds racist or offensive.

So if someone said, "Israel is trying to seize as much land in the occupied territories before the dust settles and a final peace is negotiated,'' plug in France, or New Zealand, or Zaire.

"France is trying to seize as much land as possible in the occupied territories before the dust settles and a final peace is negotiated."

Someone could say the second statement is factually inaccurate, but they could not say it is anti-French.

It would be nice if the apologists and advocates for Israel stuck to substantive arguments rather than name calling considering that few here have said anything that hasn't been written in Israeli papers by Israeli writers.

If they continue to throw around the term ant-Semitism, it will have no weight when it really is needed, just as fascist was over-used in the 60s and 70s, and nazi was over-used pretty much everyday since World War II. While any actual nazis that are still around are mostly a pathetic joke, the fascists are not, but we have no name evokes the appropriate horror because fascist has been used up.

Those who are throwing around anti-Semitic might want to save it for when Israel's perceived interests and those of big oil and the financial elite no longer overlap, and those business people are looking for a scapegoat to deflect the wrath of the American people. That's when the cry of anti-Semitism will be real, but no one will hear it because it has been wasted on those who simply disagreed on policies.

[uppityperson]

1. Good point. See if it would b e bigotry against another group

This falls within recent DU rules for posting since perhaps it could be applied to any bigotted remark?

[cali]

2. Not a particularly good test.

And doesn't add much to the endless arguments about anti-semitism, the charge that the charge of antisemitism is mostly invalid, the charge that the pre-emptive claim that there will be a charge of antisemitism, is mostly invalid. Just another rather lame post on the topic.


Edited to add that 95% of the criticism of Israel, no matter how harsh, how over the top, or how hypocritical, is not antisemitic.

[yurbud]

4. Is there a test for racism or prejudice that applies equally to Israel and

other people?

[azurnoir]

11. There was a few weeks back

The question was how would the "world" react to the British bombing and occupying Ireland due to missles (same type as Hezbollah or Hamas your choice) launched by the IRA. The thread got locked shortly, lots of name calling but no one ever addressed the question.

[bryant69]

3. I knew it. I was always suspicious of the French

Seriously though, there are levels of what people say. Some of it is as straightforward as your statement, and some of it is a bit more muddled.

The truth is both sides of this particular debate are so sure of their personal correctness, that they assume that the people who hold the opposite point of view must be bigoted or misguided or (most charitably) uninformed. Because if they knew as much as they did and if they had a good heart, well, they would agree.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[yurbud]

6. I disagree. I used to be evangelical, military, and conservative...

so triply in favor of Israel.

Once I got clear of the religious stuff though, and no longer saw Jews as God's magical chosen people, and no better or worse than anyone else, my views changed.

We wouldn't honor any other real estate claim after a 2000 year absence, and even accepting the reality of the existence of Israel now, their attempts to force the Palestinians out of the occupied territories would be inexcusable if it was being done by even a close ally like Britain or Canada. What would we think if Canada decided to squeeze out the Quebecois to make more room for English speakers? And how would the Quebecois react given that they are a minority that wouldn't have the weapons, money, and political clout of the their Anglo neighbors?

[bryant69]

7. So, to sum up, you are right, and people who disagree with you

are deluded, bigoted, immoral, or simply mistaken about the facts.

How exactly does that make me wrong?

[robinlynne]

10. uhhhhhh. It WAS done by Britain.

[tocqueville]

5. BINGO ! I HAD EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGHT TODAY !

If I posted on DU "Chirac is a war criminal !" (referring to some older shooting stories in Ivory Coast for example), I'd get responses and a discussion, at worse a flame.

If I posted "Olmert is a war criminal !" because I just learned on French TV that the Lebanese 7x30 miles strip bordering Northern Israel just LOOKS LIKE HIROSHIMA AFTER THE BOMB and only have 5 houses "standing" (this is a fact today), I'd get the thread immediately locked.

Why this sensivity ? Out of 470 millions Europeans, I bet that about 50% are thinking today that Israel is committing war crimes in Lebanon and probably 2/3 think that Israel is at fault in this conflict. Are they all anti-semites ? I don't think so.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. That's funny. I've been critical of some of Israel's policies, lately.

What I've never done, however, is apologized for Hezbollah, tried to portray them as a "humanitarian" organization engaged in a legitimate "struggle" for liberation (one that required them, apparently, to attack Israelis in Israel) ... I've never sat around grousing about how Israel "stole all the land it sits on", I've never said that the Jews should be shipped off to Montana or Kansas, I've never said that the 67 war was purely a war of aggression instigated by Israel, and any belief that they were in danger of being attacked by Egypt, Syria, etc. was due to a "petty persecution complex".

I've never argued that Israel is a "fiction", and that the folks who have repeatedly stated a committment to driving the Jews into the sea "have a point". I've never posted abstract arguments saying "well, what would YOU do if someone stole all YOUR land?" where the correct answer, apparently, is supposed to be 'strap on explosives and walk into a falafel stand jammed with families'.

And you know what else is funny? Hey, maybe this is pure coincidence- but I've never been called an anti-Semite, either.

FWIW, I don't think the statement referenced in your OP is "anti-Semitic". I don't think it's factually accurate (If Israel really wanted to occupy Southern Lebanon and "grab that land", why did they pull out in 2000?) but on the face of it, without knowing the context, I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Nominated.

I worry alot about the way charges of anti-semitism are thrown around in debates about Israel. Because anti-semitism is a very real and very serious phenomenon, it's critically important that the word not be cheapened.

I often think of "The Boy who Cried Wolf" when reading some of the threads here. Eventually the wolf will show up, and I hope that when it does, people will take it seriously, and not dismiss it because they've seen too many claims in the past that were bogus.

[Mr_Spock]

12. Those good for nothing Frogs

Good point actually - it really hurts an argument when it is not applied equally.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Sounds like conflating to me.

Your "true test" is anything but. Just as some fling about the charge of anti-Semitism, so do those here fling the charge of being charged of anti-Semitism. Then, you have the ones that don't seem to know what the damn word means or try to "re-write" it. One thread started off with the charge of anti-Semitism being used, but it NEVER was, EXCEPT by the OP! The new "attack" is anyone who doesn't agree with you (general, not you specifically) about Israel, 'you' claim that they are going to call you an anti-Semite. Some posters don't even wait for a reply before they make the charge!

[maddezmom]

14. locking

Please read new posting guidelines here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=364