Anti-Semitism: What it is and isn’t

[Behind the Aegis]

For my 10,000th post, I wanted to post something of substance. After the past month here, the thing at the top of my mind is anti-Semitism. I have seen virulently anti-Semitic posts here, most have been swept away, but that doesn’t mean the problem still isn’t here. But, I don’t know which is worse, that there anti-Semitic posters here or those who deny it.

However, it is probably best to start with at the “beginning.” Anti-Semitism, quite simply, is hate/bigotry or prejudice against Jews. It is not based on Jews being of Semitic origin; although, that is how it originally started. Anti-Semitism is not discrimination against Arabs or others who are Semitic. People who use that argument do nothing more than display ignorance and bigotry by trying to “water-down” what the word really means. To me, it is no different than those who say “homophobia” isn’t about discrimination against gays because they (the bigots) aren’t “afraid” of gays. These arguments are nothing more than linguistic acrobatics designed to degrade bigotry against another group.

So who are the anti-Semites? They are the ones that spew anti-Semitic rhetoric. Sometimes, it is very easy to discern. Sometimes, it is more coded. There are those who claim that the Jews control the media or the US Congress (or what ever the governing body for their country is). They are the ones that use the terms “kike,” “Jew boy” (reference to Lieberman), “heeb” (reference to Bob Dylan), or “Jew president” (reference to Bush). They are the ones that call for the Jews in Israel to be dispersed worldwide. They are the ones that assert that all Jews, especially those in power, are all dual-citizens. They are the ones that describe acts of anti-Semitism as “blow-back” for Israeli policy. They are the ones that say, “the world can do with one less Jewish nation.” Those are prime examples of overt anti-Semitism. With the exception of the use of “kike,” every aforementioned example has appeared at DU!

Coded, or covert, anti-Semitism is much more tricky. Different words are used in place of “Jew,” and some people know that they are spouting anti-Semitism; others do not. The ones using coded words, such as “Zionist,” are harder to weed out and infinitely more insidious. The problem is some words, such as Zionist, are not always anti-Semitic, nor is its use always anti-Semitic. However, nothing is worse than a bigot who doesn’t just come out and admit it!

The other issue I have seen are those who feel they are immune from anti-Semitism because they are Jewish, married to a Jew, or knows someone who is Jewish. Well, here is a wake up call…anyone can be an anti-Semite! One of the most famous, or infamous, Jewish anti-Semite is Roy Cohn (he is also a great example of a homophobic gay). If you start a sentence with, “I can’t be an anti-Semite because…” and use one of the above “excuses,” you should think about why you need to have a disclaimer. To me, it is no different than those who say, “I can’t be racist because I have Black friends.” Knowing someone, or even being a member of said group, doesn’t give one a “free pass” from being a bigot…ever!

Some will say they use the “disclaimer” because they ‘fear’ being called an anti-Semite, especially if discussing Israel. That seems to be the new “charge,” preemptively claiming to be accused of bigotry, when no such charge has been leveled. These are usually the ones too, who claim someone who challenges their point, again usually about Israel, that the challenger is really calling him/her an anti-Semite.

In closing, face it, anti-Semitism is still alive and kicking, even on the “left!” The question is how to we deal with it? It is also important to note that this post is not about Israel, her policies, her government, her birth, or any wars, it is about unbridled hate directed against Jews! Criticism against Israel is not always anti-Semitic, but it can be, but that is another thread.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Congratulations!

And a fine post it is, recommended.

:hug:

[Behind the Aegis]

67. I have NOTHING to say to you....

...BUT...

:hug:

(I wish I knew how to make that hug bigger!!!!)

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[warrens]

112. Because it specifically says it is not about Israel?

I think it was a worthwhile post. The anti-semite card gets pulled rather frequently around here.

[SmokingJacket]

127. Plus, there's not much to flame here, either. nt

[salvorhardin]

2. Excellent post!

Recommended.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Thank you!

I appreciate your recommendation! I was so surprised that a thread like this would generate such comments this "late" in the evening.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

4. Hey, that's great!

Now BTA won't have to make up an example of what he's talking about.


Way to go.:eyes:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Hmmm...

I have heard this before, it went something like this...

"Most people incarcerated (in the US) are African-American, so it is not racist to say that Blacks are more than likely to exhibit criminal behavior."

Would you agree that is a "fact" or simply racism?

I have other examples if that one doesn't help clear up your 'confusion.'

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

15. Speaking of bad examples...

I'm still waiting for you to back up your "fact" with evidence.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Ummm...it IS a fact.

Most people currently in prison are African-American. That's fact! What is not fact is that based on the fact that AA make up the majority of the prison population, that they (AA) are therefore, more likely to be criminals. That statement is NOT fact, but racism! So, to say that most media outlets are owned by Jews, may be fact (still haven't seen that proved yet), it doesn't make "Jews control the media" fact!

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[ProfessorGAC]

97. Although I Didn't See The Deleted Message. . .

. . .i would suggest that the original writer of those posts is guilty of textbook syllogism.

I infer that from your reply. Using two facts and then correlating them without any causative proof is what i figured that poster did.

Just found it interesting that i could figure out what happened by reading your reply to the deleted message. You did such a good job of refuting, that i didn't need to see what you were refuting.

Nice work.
The Professor

[beam me up scottie]

10. Name them.

You should be able to prove your claim.

Go for it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

16. You said jews control the media.

Those are corporations, not jews.

Try again.

You must have researched this before posting it, right?

I'd hate to think you were just parroting anti-semites.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

20. Which top guys?

Come on, you made the claim, you must know who they are.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

25. Yes.

I didn't make the claim, you did, and now you can't back it up.

Just what I expected.

See #24.

[evox]

28. Huh

I did not say I can't back it up. I said why don't you research it on your own if you're really interested in finding out- but obviously you're not.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Because that is anti-Semitism.

Honestly, I didn't even know that Murdoch had a Jewish mother. I have seen nothing to indicate that he is a practicing Jew or even was raised as one. But, to answer your question...Murdoch is ONE Jew, if he is a Jew by anything other than the matrilineal line.

So, you think the Jews control the media?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Can you "really" not see what you are saying?

Because there are media outlets owned by Jews doesn't mean that "Jews control the media." You are "spewing" anti-Semitism.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Bear down under]

47. He doesn't.

his mother, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch,nee Elisabeth Joy Greene, was educated at St Catherine's Scoool, Toorak. An odd place to send a Jewish girl even now, let alone back in the early years of the 20th century. (She was born in 1909.) It is usually said her father was an Irish protestant minister, her mother an Englishwoman.

http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/AWE0366b.htm

I must say I have a lot more respect for her than for her son.

[REP]

14. All Your Media Are Belong To Us

Giving you the benefit of the doubt - because I am very tired, not because I think you deserve it - over-representation is not the same thing as control.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[REP]

41. I Dare You To Make Less Sense!

Your example is illogical and nonsensical. Over-representation is the same thing as control.

[AngryAmish]

98. Do African American control the NFL?

There are more AAs in the NFL than their percentage in the regular population. Does it mean they control the NFL?

[REP]

107. Yikes! There Should Be A "Not" In My Post!!

Over-representation is NOT the same as control is what I meant to type - just as I did a few posts above! We are in agreement!

I dare me to make less sense in that one! Sheesh!

[AngryAmish]

110. No, I hate you!!!!!!

As one who has made a bloody fool of himself repeatedly through my butchery of our language, I sympathize and withdraw any harsness in my post.

[REP]

155. Oh Yeah? You Are Teh Suck!

No harshness was detected - your analogy was excellent. But next time, read every single thing I type on a thread!!1! in case I make another dumbass typo.

[mark414]

43. it is wrong to say that the jews control the media because

there's a hell of a lot of jewish people out there with no stake in any media conglomerate or operation. when you say something like "the jews control the media" you seem to be saying that everyone in that group, or at least a large number of people in that group have a hand in it which is categorically untrue. so harvey weinstein owns miramax. that's not an example that "the jews" control hollywood, it's an example that this guy owns this company and he happens to be jewish. why should his religion or ethnicity factor into anything? it's like say "the blacks" control the NBA cause there's a lot of black people in the NBA.

it's a stupid and unnecessary statement.

[Igel]

132. There's a further point to be made.

Even if Jews *did* control the media, so what? It's like saying "whites control the media".

Even assuming similar kinds of bias ("most reporters working for large media newspapers are democrats") doesn't rise to the level of animosity usually in "Jews control the media." The bias is there, no doubt; but it doesn't generate the same kind of animosity.

In fact, the animosity is more akin to "corporations control the media" or "Rove controls the media." Of course corporations control the media, or at least most of them; if a media company is large enough to merit attention and is profitable, then a corporation has likely bought it, and expects it to make money. "Rove controls the media" is a bit more spurious.

"Jews control the media" usually has an implicit assumption that the Jews are operating according to a plan or have a united set of goals. It's not an assumption far removed from saying the Elders of Zion are manipulating things behind the scenes.

[hfojvt]

12. congrats on 10,000

However a little hyperbolic here.
For example "nothing is worse than a bigot who does not just come out and admit it"

I am pretty sure that mass murderers, rapists, serial killers, abusive spouses, abusive parents, corrupt police, etc., etc., etc. are worse.

Also, if a person does not know they are spouting anti-semitism does that not mean that they are not, in fact, anti-semitic? A good example, of that, to me, is the whole tar baby incident. Many non-bigots know that as a story from their childhood without knowing that there are other levels to the stories and the terms. Thus, although they use a racist term, it is not because they are racists. Just like many people use the term "paddy wagon" without knowing it as a slur against Irish.

I also ask again, how is it anti-semitic to argue that Jews seem to have enormous influence in both Congress and the M$M? How else to explain that Israel seems to be a closer ally than Canada, Britain, or Deutschland?

Some of the other statements or positions do not seem obviously anti-semitic either. Can you explain why seeing a connection between anti-semitic acts and Israel policy is anti-semitic regardless if one thinks it is justified or not? Or are you just handing out scarlet R's?

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Just a few answers and more questions....

Yes, I am guilty of hyperbole. :P However, I was talking about posts, not the grand scheme of things/life. Now, I will address your other questions/issues...

Also, if a person does not know they are spouting anti-semitism does that not mean that they are not, in fact, anti-semitic? A good example, of that, to me, is the whole tar baby incident. Many non-bigots know that as a story from their childhood without knowing that there are other levels to the stories and the terms. Thus, although they use a racist term, it is not because they are racists. Just like many people use the term "paddy wagon" without knowing it as a slur against Irish.

If someone doesn't know they are repeating anti-Semitic rhetoric, they may not be anti-Semitic, simply uneducated about the issue. Your examples of "tar-baby" and "Paddy wagon" are good examples. Another good example is "gyp," which is a slam against the Rom. That is why I said in my piece that some simply do not they are spouting anti-Semitism. However, there are some people who are anti-Semitic that say those things and just don't realize that they are being true to their beliefs.

I also ask again, how is it anti-semitic to argue that Jews seem to have enormous influence in both Congress and the M$M? How else to explain that Israel seems to be a closer ally than Canada, Britain, or Deutschland?

I don't know where you asked this before, but there is a difference between having "influence" and "control." It is, however, a sweeping generalization. For the most part, generalizations, while having some basis in truth and fact, do not necessarily mean the "norm." As for the second part of your question, I think that has more to do with perception, than reality.

Some of the other statements or positions do not seem obviously anti-semitic either. Can you explain why seeing a connection between anti-semitic acts and Israel policy is anti-semitic regardless if one thinks it is justified or not? Or are you just handing out scarlet R's?

I am not sure what you are asking. For which statements are you needing clarification? And, what does "Can you explain why seeing a connection between anti-semitic acts and Israel policy is anti-semitic regardless if one thinks it is justified or not? mean? And what is a scarlet "R?"

[hfojvt]

42. control is just influence stated hyperbolically

sweeping generalizations can be partly accurate, although most are just ludicrously simplistic or paranoid. However, I am not clear that holding to a ludicrous sweeping generalization makes one an anti-semite, although some make those generalizations because they are anti-semites.

"I am not sure what you are asking. For which statements are you needing clarification? And, what does "Can you explain why seeing a connection between anti-semitic acts and Israel policy is anti-semitic regardless if one thinks it is justified or not? mean? And what is a scarlet "R?""

The scarlet R is a metaphor from Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". It would mean that you quickly brand those who disagree with you. Apparently, however, I have not earned one yet. Just give me some more rope. In your OP you do seem to tend towards reading between the lines, constantly suspecting anti-semitism. That may just be because I am reading between the lines constantly expecting people to be trigger happy with their scarlet Rs.

The latter question was about your statement that saying "anti-semitic attacks are 'blow back' for Israeli policy". Other than connotations in the word 'blow back' which I cannot find in my desk dictionary, that seems to be more true than it is anti-semitic. Or even if it is false, does believing or asserting that particular falsehood demonstrate anti-semitism?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. First, I'd like to congratulate you on 10K

We may not always completely agree, but I find your posts to be well thought out as is this one.

I almost totally agree with your post and its descriptors of anti-semitism but for one point:

While I agree that paranoid posts about Jews running the country, the media and the like are all either overt or covert examples of anti-semitism, I do feel that concerns and rebukes of the AIPAC lobby and their influence are fair game and should be discussed freely without screams of anti-semitism being offered up in a knee-jerk manner UNLESS someone has made a bigoted statement as you have outlined above.

When Chinese money unduly influences our elections and politicians, it is an outrage. When Christian Coalition money unduly influences our process, it is an outrage. When corporate money unduly influences our process, it is an outrage. The same holds true for AIPAC.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Flattery will get you NOWHERE..OK, well, it will... :)

Thanks for your post. I am glad you feel my posts are "well thought out," but I will be the first to admit, sometimes, my emotions get the best of me. For this particular posts, I have been planning and writing it for two days.

As for AIPAC, you make a legitimate comment. They do have great influence over policies concerning Israel, and, perhaps, even some Middle Eastern policy. However, I take exception that they are this all-powerful group that 'controls' US policy (or even US foreign policy). It is that sentiment that I usually confront here. It is no different than the "we hate Lieberman" threads. I normally stay out of them, because I do not care for his stance on the "War against Iraq,' and a few other things. However, when the claims of dual-citizenship/loyalty come into play, then you will see my name pop up.

The other thing to take in consideration is that AIPAC may not always have Israel's best interest in mind, even though they feel they do.

[acmejack]

74. What other group can demand and receive a position paper

from every prospective congressional candidate vis-a-vis their Israel policy? "Influence over policies concerning Israel, and, perhaps, even some Middle Eastern policy" indeed!

I suggest one must be careful not to conflate anti-AIPAC sentiment with anti semetism.

Congrats on 10K, btw.

[havocmom]

239. What NSMA said

:yourock:

[Lasher]

26. Wow, congrats on 10K posts!

Are things still lively in the I/P forum? Remember when I stumbled in there once?

I'm always glad to see your contributions here.

Lasher

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Thanks!

I remember you! :rofl:

As for I/P, they are more lively now than in the past month, when the hate for Israel was allowed to spill into all forums.

Glad to see you are still around. Don't be so shy...you can come back to I/P...we don't all bite hard. :evilgrin:

:hi:

[Lasher]

36. The I/P Forum

I don't know, last time I was there I felt like I was trying to shake off someone's dog that was hanging on my pant leg. Maybe I'll try again sometime after I've had a boatload of beer.

Seems like you're usually up at this same time, around 4:30 AM EDT. I have trouble sleeping, often waking up around 2 AM then going back to bed at around 6. I like the early AM crowd here at DU.

I have noticed the anger against Israel that's been expressed here lately, and have noticed your participation in some of the threads that conveyed that sentiment. Hang in there, it will pass. I think most people in the US have a lot of respect for the Israelis.

[Behind the Aegis]

58. Oh the I/P forum..or "dungeon" as some call it....

I know the feeling that you describe! The good thing: more "real" conversation is starting to emerge! Those who really are interested in the I/P situation are starting to be able to discuss the issues without bullshit distractions (there are some still there 'gumming' things up).

I am like you. I sleep at odd times. I have to say that the fact that my 'little' post got this much attention at this hour...well, that says something!

As for the anger at Israel, I have been pissed at some of the things going on there! I am angry at the leadership! I am angry at the posts I see here mocking the deaths of Israelis. I am angry at the bullshit double-standards! All I can say...I am not Israeli. I sit in New Orleans, safe (well, kind of...that is a WHOLE other thread). I see the deaths of Israelis mocked...except those who are Arab Israelis. I don't get it. They (those Arabs) they choose to be Israeli! Their deaths are just as horrific, yet, some here, their deaths are MORE important than those who are Jews! WHY!?!? THEY ARE ISRAELIS! I posted something in LBN tonight...it was post 9999. It was about dead Israelis, Arab Israelis...only ONE person commented and that comment was about the "size of the town." I wonder, if I had posted about dead Arabs or Muslims, would that have attracted more attention? The worst thing...some of them didn't have to die! The Israelis were ready to evacuate them...it didn't matter they weren't Jews...they were ISRAELIS! And yet they died...in an Arab country!

[Ani Yun Wiya]

31. A question for you...

Is any criticism of someone who is a Jew; anti-semitism or merely a response to that individual?

[Behind the Aegis]

33. An answer....I hope.

"Is any criticism of someone who is a Jew; anti-semitism or merely a response to that individual?"

The obvious answer would be "no." If, G-d forbid, I was murdered, would my death be because I was a Jew or gay (both identities I display)? There is the possibility that it would be because I was a Jew or gay, but it could be that I was "just" a robbery victim.

If I criticize a person, who happens to be Muslim, it doesn't mean that I am Islamaphobic. However, if I criticize that person because s/he is Muslim, then I am guilty of Islamaphobia.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

37. Another question...

Same parameters vis-vis criticism, but change the quantity to identifiable groupings of jewish folk, say the IDF for instance?

Would that constitute anti-semitism by your standards?

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Ok...I will try to answer this.

"Same parameters vis-vis criticism, but change the quantity to identifiable groupings of jewish folk, say the IDF for instance? Would that constitute anti-semitism by your standards?"

Well, first, not all IDF are Jews. Second, it would depend on the type of criticism being invoked.

"The IDF is out of control! They are killing indiscriminately!" This is NOT anti-Semitism! Hyperbole, perhaps, but not anti-Semitism.

"The IDF is out of control! They are acting like the Nazis that created them!" THAT is anti-Semitism!

On edit" a "bold" issue

[Ani Yun Wiya]

49. Another subset of the first question...

Again the same basis of criticism.

As it as is that Israel is a Jewish nation, what does not constitute anti-semitism when criticizing this nation-state?

[Behind the Aegis]

56. Well...

What is the basis of the criticism? That is what it comes down to, why and how the nation-state is being criticized. Do you think that a statement like, "the world could do with one less Jewish nation" is anti-Semitic?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

60. As to critcisms...

Those which have to do with Israel's occupation of lands other than it's own.
Those which have to do with it's treatment of it's neighbors.
Those which have to do with it's lack of compliance with UN resolutions.
Those which have to do with it's unwillingness to negotiate with it's neighbors.

And I would agree with the statement as being anti-semitic.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. More answers...

"Those which have to do with Israel's occupation of lands other than it's own."

That 'claim' is not anti-Semitic. To pretend that it is because of a desire to have an Israel from the "sea to sea," well, that IS anti-Semitic.


"Those which have to do with it's treatment of it's neighbors."

Again, this 'relative' to what is happening.


"Those which have to do with it's lack of compliance with UN resolutions."

And? How many of those resolutions are compliant on the actions of entities other than Israel? What I mean, is how can Israel comply, when the other party, a non-nation, doesn't comply?


"Those which have to do with it's unwillingness to negotiate with it's neighbors."

This one I don't "get." What about the recent "ceasefire" in Gaza that includes everyone, BUT certain groups?! So, if Israel responds, they will be in violation of a 'ceasefire,' despite not ALL groups have agreed to it? Sounds like a double-standard to me!

"And I would agree with the statement as being anti-semitic."

That is refreshing...because, some here would NOT agree!

[Ani Yun Wiya]

69. So...

"Those which have to do with Israel's occupation of lands other than it's own."

That 'claim' is not anti-Semitic. To pretend that it is because of a desire to have an Israel from the "sea to sea," well, that IS anti-Semitic.

So we agree that this is a valid criticism and not anti-semetic.

"Those which have to do with it's lack of compliance with UN resolutions."

And? How many of those resolutions are compliant on the actions of entities other than Israel? What I mean, is how can Israel comply, when the other party, a non-nation, doesn't comply?

To whom does the appelation "non-nation" apply?

"Those which have to do with it's unwillingness to negotiate with it's neighbors."

This one I don't "get." What about the recent "ceasefire" in Gaza that includes everyone, BUT certain groups?! So, if Israel responds, they will be in violation of a 'ceasefire,' despite not ALL groups have agreed to it? Sounds like a double-standard to me!

Is not Israel the nation-state that coined the operative principle of "not negotiating with terrorists"?
And furthermore if Israel labels it's neighbors as "terrorists", is this not a denial of the fact that those people are Israel's neighbors?


edited: bold issue

[Leopolds Ghost]

226. "G-d forbid"

I saw a movie about that recently.

If a Christian posted a similar comment calling themselves both gay and
religious, and attacking Arabs or atheists or whomever for their hatred
of Christians, they would be (wrongly) tombstoned.

If a Christian posted something about how Bush & co. were hijacking
Christanity, their thread would be locked and sent to the religion "dungeon" (unlike this one) after about five comments attacking
religious people in general as "fools".

So DU is not especially Anti-Semitic (I'm sure there are just as many deleted racist posts as there are deleted anti-semitic posts), or not uniquely hostile to any particular religion!

If you are gay, Orthodox, AND militantly Zionist (in the political
sense of the word) all I can say is... good luck. There are a lot
of contradictions there.

I agree with your original post except for the part where you exclude
Arabs from your definition of "Semitism". That's an example of
ridiculous reactionary self-censorship akin to saying blacks can't be
racist. Just because there are more Arabs doesn't make it right.

[Wonk]

34. If you mean anti-Jewish, why not just say anti-Jewish?

Honest question. Why cling to a term that can be "watered down", as you say, by linguists?

Happy 10,000th post, I fixed your avatar for you. Your current version is taller than it is wide, and DU resizes it automatically, causing jaggies.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Because anti-Semitism = anti-Jewish.

I didn't say that the term was 'watered down' by "linguists." I said that it is watered down by "linguistic acrobats." So why should I use the term, "Judeophobic," when this centennial-old word means the same thing?

[Wonk]

53. Why prefer the term with debatable meaning over the unambiguous one?

Btw, to update your avatar, download it from my previous post, then upload it in your DU user preference options.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. Because "anti-semitism" is NOT debateable. n/t

[Wonk]

71. What else is on your list of things that aren't debatable? I'm curious. nt

[Zynx]

105. You can technically debate anything.

It doesn't mean you have a factual leg to stand on.

[MH1]

113. Funny how liittle respect there is for linguists.

There are threads on DU that complain about people misusing the term "fascism." Yet it is okay (?) to claim that "Semite" does not mean Semite, but only some Semites, when combined with the prefix "anti", meaning "against or opposing", in an extremely typical linguistic construction.

Seems to me that the historic originator of the term "anti-Semite", if they meant what the op claims, were guilty of co-opting language for their own agenda.

But then I understand from the op that I am "ignorant" if I "cling" to the logical linguistic interpretation.

Got it. Flame away - I don't intend to return to this thread.

[readmoreoften]

206. Sorry. History of meaning plays a part in linguistic analysis.

It has nothing to do with "logical" linguistic interpretation as you say. What you really mean to say (and yes, I am telling you what you mean to say) is "common sense" linguistic interpretation. There is nothing "logical" about clinging to ahistoric, literal analyses of words.

Are all homophobes literally "afraid" of homosexuality?

Are all gays literally happy and joyous?

Are all lesbians from the Isle of Lesbos?

Do Klan members never target Indians because they are Caucasian?

Are Klan members not anti-black because they sometimes dress in black clothing and write with pens that use black ink?

Is it impossible for Mexicans to be anti-American because Mexico is a part of North America?

[erik-the-red]

220. I agree

Anti-Semitism is prejudice against Semitic people. We always think of Jews because they have traditionally been the targets of prejudice, but Anti-Semitism does apply to other Semitic groups, including Arabs.

I think a lot of statements against Israel are too quickly construed as anti-Semitic. Criticizing the government does not mean that the constituent people are being discriminated against.

[Heidi]

39. Congratulations, Behind the Aegis.

:hug:

[Behind the Aegis]

48. Thanks, Heidi!

And a big ol' Jewish, gay :hug: right back at ya!

[Heidi]

51. w00t!

:bounce:

[Behind the Aegis]

65. I see how it is!

You like us gay, Jewish boys! :rofl:

Well, we like you too! :)

:evilgrin:

[Heidi]

68. It's twue! It's twue!

One of my greatest unrequited college crushes was on a gay, Jewish boy. :blush:

[AntiFascist]

40. I have a question about Zionism....

can you please define what it means to you? Maybe I'm just being stupid, and I realize that historically the term "Zionist pig" and other hateful comments about Zionists have been spewed by Nazis and and those who hate Israel for decades, but today might it be good to define precisely what a Zionist is and what his/her intentions are? I know that the strictest dictionary definition may involve the question over Palestine, which is why so many of these threads probably get moved to the I/P forum. I've also seen some rather scarey right-wing Jewish sites with ideas about Zionism that rival those of the Christian Dominionists. Also, I don't believe that Zionism necessarilly equates with being Jewish, or even with maintaining a Jewish homeland, since there are Israeli Jewish groups (who obviously want to maintain their homeland) who are opposed to Zionism.

[T Town Jake]

46. I have a question about bathing...

...and though I don't know how to "define" it, I'm pretty sure I know what it means when I'm doing it...

"Zionism" is code for those whom hate the notion of a Jewish State in Israel to rant about the existence of the same in general - and Jews in particular. Please don't pretend like you don't know the difference.

[AntiFascist]

50. Sorry but I'm being quite sincere....

I want to know what it means to the OP to be a Zionist, not what it means to someone who is touting the destruction of Israel. Unfortunately, not being Jewish myself, it doesn't come to me as naturally as the concept of bathing.

One edit: sorry again, I should have read your post more carefully, ie "the notion of a Jewish state in Israel." So I assume, then, that from your point of view the question of being a Zionist is that of a secular state vs. a Jewish (in the religious sense) state? Is this in terms of law? Please don't take my comments as being insulting, I'm trying to understand some basic concepts.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. What does "Zionism" mean to me. By Behind the Aegis....

Zionism means that I see and envision a safe, secure Israel. I wish Israel to be secure in her own borders. I want that all Jews have a "safe haven" from the evils of the world. I wish that we, Jews, have a place that we can call our home, if our native countries decide to have "programs" against us again. I am a Zionist that wants a place that we all "rise or fall" together!

'I know that the strictest dictionary definition may involve the question over Palestine, which is why so many of these threads probably get moved to the I/P forum."

That is not why they get moved there. However, if you wish to discuss that, I would be happy to accommodate a discussion about it. As a Zionist, I wish to see a safe, secure Palestine, BUT, it must be a separate country, NOT what we now know as Israel.


"I've also seen some rather scary right-wing Jewish sites with ideas about Zionism that rival those of the Christian Dominionists."

The right-wing of any group can be scary. Why should Jewish right-wing groups differ? They really don't. Well, they do in some respects. See, some right-wing Jews want Israel to occupy ALL of the area, and others....well, they don't Israel to exist at ALL (well, not until G-d, Himself creates Israel)! So we have a right-wing movement that is split.

"Also, I don't believe that Zionism necessarilly equates with being Jewish, or even with maintaining a Jewish homeland, since there are Israeli Jewish groups (who obviously want to maintain their homeland) who are opposed to Zionism."

You'd be correct in that assessment. It relates back to the aforementioned paragraph. So, if you don't support radical religious fundamentalism, why would you cite them as a source for anti-Zionism?

[AntiFascist]

57. Thank you!, that's what I was looking for....

If that's what Zionism amounts to, then what we may have on behalf of a lot of people (excluding the extremists) is simply a paranoia about Zionism that we are dealing with, in the same way that many people are worried about right-wing fundamentalists representing all Christian evangelists. The Jewish "anti-Zionist" movement would really, more correctly, be termed an anti-Extremist movement, and perhaps mainstream Zionists would be as insulted by them as mainstream Christians are when they are compared to the religious right.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Poll_Blind]

133. You're right, NSA. Ethnic nationalism is the heart of what we're talking..

...about here and it's not very pretty when you get right down to it. Michael Neumann gives an incredibley clear description of this in "The Case Against Israel".

PB

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

152. OK..let me rephrase:

As a Zionist, I wish to see a safe, secure Palestine, BUT, it must be a separate country, NOT what we now know as Israel.

Why? Please elaborate? Why is it wrong to MOVE Israeli's out of a piece of land they occupy but not wrong to demand it of Palestinians?

[Behind the Aegis]

158. OK...I am a little confused.

You say: "Why? Please elaborate? Why is it wrong to MOVE Israeli's out of a piece of land they occupy but not wrong to demand it of Palestinians?"

Who is asking for Palestinians to be moved? I have no issue with an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. The land I see becoming Palestine is Gaza and the West Bank, and possibly another swath of land. I don't see moving Palestinians as an issue as they are already there. However, I don't wish to continue this here (PM is fine or I/P) because the OP is not about the I/P situation and I don't want it sent there...at least not yet. :)

[T Town Jake]

44. Excellent post...and exactly right from start to finish.

...:thumbsup:

[Monkie]

52. and some of us just hate that nation born of terror,that lives by terror

Come back when israel is not commiting warcrimes and murder and we can discuss anti-semitism

[Behind the Aegis]

55. So...

...you are excusing anti-Semitism?

[Monkie]

59. im saying you cant bomb the shit out of innocent people and then claim

people hate the perpetrators because they are green/purple/aliens which seems to be the point you are trying to make on this board.
Israel was founded on terror.
Israel is committing crimes of war NOW.

This is not the time to discuss why a small and sick percentage of the planet hates jews for being jews.

It seems to me to be the time to discuss the small and sick percentage of the planet who hate arabs, democracy, and the rule of international law, and those who wish to apologise for them and appease them.

i hope that clears things up for you.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. And what I am saying...

...JEWS didn't "...bomb the shit out of innocent people...!"

"This is not the time to discuss why a small and sick percentage of the planet hates jews for being jews.

It seems to me to be the time to discuss the small and sick percentage of the planet who hate arabs, democracy, and the rule of international law, and those who wish to apologise for them and appease them."

And it seems YOU are willing to excuse Jew-hate because you are accusing me (?) of wishing "...wish to apologise for them and appease them."

Things are CRYSTAL clear! But, then again, I am familiar with your posts!

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

76. it appears that you find zionists disgusting. nt.

[izzie]

61. I find it a hard subject. It is like calling me anti-Am.

I never thought we should go into Iraq so many call me anti-Am. I frankly as a teen-ager thought the Jews should have a country. One could almost guess that Europe or the US would not give them any and they wanted the Holy Land. I also had no thoughts they were taking land away from others, even if the others were not a country, the land was really not ours to give or theirs to take, but that is from 20/20 hind sight. Course we could say that about the Am. Indians also. They are there and should stay but some type of talking has to go on so they all can live in peace. Believe me I do not know how that will be done. Also bad things have been done on both sides. Frankly I do not blame either side. This thinking seems to put me in your group. I also think people should be from one country and not this duel passport stuff for any one. World wide.

[DoYouEverWonder]

72. Well you better add Amnesty International to your list

of anti-Semites:

Israel accused over 'war crimes'

August 23, 2006

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

The human rights group says attacks on homes, bridges, roads and water and fuel plants were an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in the recent war.

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5276626.stm

According to your definition almost everyone in the world who is not Jewish (and many Jews too) are anti-Semites. It is very difficult to resolve issues with people who paint everyone else with such a broad brush, while refusing to ever smell their own shit.

[nashville_brook]

118. damn Amnesty International! CONSPIRATORS!

i KNEW they weren't just for HUMAN RIGHTS! phhht. it's reeeaally a cover for their j*w-hatin'. they're for everyone's rights EXCEPT the j*ws... just like HITLER!

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL equals NAZIs! i bet they have Protocols instead of a Mission Statement! I bet they support Palestine!

[izzybeans]

120. Didn't you know that they are secretly in contact with

neo-nazis. They are conspiring to take over the world. And all DUers are really from Stormfront. :sarcasm:

[nashville_brook]

121. as my AI mentor in college said...

"beware the shadowy men in bowler hats... " ... lurking Spy V Spy... possibly in the cover band entertaining our Model U.N. Security Council competition... or following us around the Student Union...

the leeeetle men in bowler hats are everywhere! why... they're like

THE DREAM POLICE (imagine cover band wearing jumpsuits)

The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no.

You know that talk is cheap, and those rumors aint nice.
And when I fall asleep I dont think Ill survive the night, the night.

cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.

The dream police, they live inside of my head.
(live inside of my head.)
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
(come to me in my bed.)
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me, oh no.

Well, I cant tell lies, cause theyre listening to me.
And when I fall asleep, bet theyre spying on me tonight, tonight.

cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.

I try to sleep, theyre wide awake, they wont leave me alone.
They dont get paid to take vacations, or let me alone.
They spy on me, I try to hide, they wont let me alone.
They persecute me, theyre the judge and jury all in one.

cause theyre waiting for me.
Theyre looking for me.
Evry single night theyre driving me insane.
Those men inside my brain.

The dream police, they live inside of my head.
The dream police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream police, theyre coming to arrest me.

[nashville_brook]

122. every. single. night. they're driving me insaaaaaaaane...

[nashville_brook]

124. those men inside my braaaaaain.......

[nashville_brook]

126. ....they're coming to ARREST ME! oh no!

(nothing wrong with a little Cheap Trick in the morning!)

[Behind the Aegis]

161. Try re-reading my post.

The only "broad brush" employed here is the one you are using! I guess you missed the part where I said, "Criticism against Israel is not always anti-Semitic, but it can be, but that is another thread."

As for this: "According to your definition almost everyone in the world who is not Jewish (and many Jews too) are anti-Semites." That is just a laughable conclusion! Because, it is clearly not what I said!

Yet again, another poster trying to make a conversation about anti-Semitism into a conversation about the "evils" of Israel.

[izzybeans]

169. So by your definition this is anti-semitic right?

the post you responded to. I suppose the only time I've seen this charge on DU has been after someone criticized Isreal it seems people are on the defensive on this one; which is not anti-anything in most cases but a response to a concrete charge actually being made. Maybe I only see this charge then because the truly anti-semitic stuff gets deleted. I don't participate in these discussions enough to know.

As for getting beyond anti-semitism, which rereading the OP again I think was the quasi-hidden point (perhaps buried by misapprehension) and is probably the best avenue for a discussion; what do you propose? Obviously defining it is getting us nowhere. I would suggest a thread that is simply titled "Beyond anti-semitism", leave the syntactics and semantics for linguists, and allow the definition to remain open. The solution comes from the dialogue.

I like dialogue, which is why I visit this forum, and this is the place for it.

How to create a dialogue? And with who? On this forum it seems allies beat each other up over this issue. Some have nationalist loyalities that divide them and others do not. I propose one way of getting beyond anti-semitism on this board is to focus the dialogue on "beyond nationalism". It's the root of this problem from the start IMO. This will require some heavy self-reflection on all sides; but every dialogue should. However that is a proposal because I won't be the one with the answers. I have some ideas and so does about everyone else.

Getting beyond anti-semitism outside of DU is like getting beyond any other prejudice. It will take a long term shift of our unconscious presuppositions about ethnicity and nationalities. How to do that? No one knows. The color line, in Dubois' estimation, was and is still a decisive problem in our country. Anti-semitism remains as well. Getting beyond it will require trust building between groups and the recognition of commonality. So far ethnic divisions lock groups into corners cowering in fear of one another. Add in the purity seeking force of nationalism and we've got a cauldron of trouble on our hands. Getting beyond that will take a sustained effort at trust and partnership building. Perhaps creating new identities and cultures along the way. But again these are just ideas...

[Behind the Aegis]

179. No, it is not.

Sorry, I had to read and reread your post. It confused me a little. The post I was responding to is not an example of anti-Semitism; conflating, yes, but not anti-Semitism.

You say: "I suppose the only time I've seen this charge on DU has been after someone criticized Israel it seems people are on the defensive on this one; which is not anti-anything in most cases but a response to a concrete charge actually being made." Sadly, it is not the only time that anti-Semitism rears its ugly head here at DU. There have been anti-Semitic remarks about Jewish candidates, politicians, and even posters (me being one of them).

I will also say this, since there seems to be some confusion, anti-Israeli doesn't always equal anti-Semitic!

I am sorry for such a lack-luster response, but I am juggling other things at the moment. Should the thread last into the night, perhaps I will respond with something a little more profound. :)

[izzybeans]

186. Thanks for clarifying.

I was in a rush sorry. I think you may start a more fruitful discussion by focusing on the second point to your OP, which is getting beyond anti-semitism. No one disputes its existence. And it is easy to lay claim to one definition or another. It just became apparent to me that discussions of the definition are probably not going to move us beyond it. I was wondering if you thought an open ended discussion of "getting beyond anti-semitism" would be worthwhile. And then I spit out in a half-cocked manner some issues that may need to be dealt with to move beyond it. Finally I think that might deserve its own thread; leaving the definition behind. This is the sort of thing you feel more than define anyway. When it feels right then we know how far beyond it we will have moved.

On edit: I think this will get passed the misunderstanding evident in the thread-my posts included. There has been so much going on in regards to this term lately that the eyes begin to play tricks and assumptions run wild.

[k_jerome]

73. Bravo. nt.

[izzybeans]

75. The question is what isn't anti-semitism then?

[H2O Man]

80. That is an interesting question.

As this thread is focused on domestic issues, rather than on foreign affairs, I would suggest that one of the best resources is the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC tracks hate groups and hate crimes in the USA. Now certainly there is a level of anti-Semitism that, while it doesn't reach the level of hate crimes, needs to be addressed. The SPLC has valuable information for teaching school children to accept and appreciate people from all walks of life, and as a general rule, when these lessons are followed, society benefits.

Most people can look at the recent incident with Mel Gibson, and recognize that his behavior went beyond simply being intoxicated from drinking alcohol. His behavior indicates he was intoxicated on hatred. His hatred doesn't include joining a KKK chapter, but it has included some messages in his movies that the public should take issue with.

There is also a problem when people like Linda Chavez has a guest editorial (New York Post; 8-6-06) which claims that when American citizens question the neoconservative agenda that resulted in this nation invading Iraq, that this is an "anti-Semitic attack." Likewise, there are those on the left who take the position that concerns about the neocon/AIPAC spy scandal, which involved the concept of an extensive military strike against Iran, as anti-Semitism.

[izzybeans]

84. I concur.

and I would argue that the OP leaves room for your last set of examples. In the thread title the phrase "what it is not" is included and there was little coverage on the "what it is not" question, which is why discussions like this are counterproductive and end with, at best, only a few deleted messages.

[IChing]

128. I concur also

H2O man asked a good question
I normally stay out of these threads

[nashville_brook]

141. jon stewart must be an antisemite, then...

as he often refers to himself as Jewey Jewerman.

[cracksquirrel]

144. In case you didn't get the memo...

He's a comedian. He makes jokes. Seriously, do they remove your sense of humor with a scalpel the moment you walk into an I/P / Jew-related thread? I know the subject matter usually is tragic and hardly funny but... c'mon! I don't see why the difference between real anti-semitism and Jon Stewart cracking a Jew joke needs to be explained... it's painfully simple.

[nashville_brook]

148. 'splain, then

[cracksquirrel]

149. I ain't 'splainin

What don' need 'splainin, an' i dun' wanna' hear no complainin'! Tee hee...

[rosesaylavee]

77. Good points and well written...

As a product of my environment and my upbringing - which was pretty good but not perfect - I know I was exposed to all sorts of bigoted statements by authority figures in my life (parents, aunts, uncles, teachers, etc.)

So to combat that, I closely monitor what I say and think. If I find myself falling into a thought pattern that says 'this entire group of people' are X... that is a red flag that my thinking is not clear and is probably prejudicial. At that point, I slap myself gently :) and move on to clearer thinking. This may not work for everyone, but it does for me. Important point here: One person doesn't represent an entire people.

One may know a white, a black, a Jew, a Muslim who is the absolute worst example of a human - however, there is no way their bad behavior represents an entire group. To break the cycle of ignorance, we all need to agree to step outside ourselves and personally evaluate the hate spewed around us and decide what is really the truth and if it is bigotry, is that really something we want to participate in.

A good source for corporate or personal workshops addressing these issues is: www.ncbi.org . The founder has done A LOT of work on I/P issues both in this country and in Israel.

K & R

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

79. perhaps you should educate yourself on the source...

of the term anti-semitism. Of course, then you could not put forth your idiotic argument coming from an uneducated point of view.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

85. I know for a fact there are anti-semites that are miffed...

when you call them anti-semitic. I also know this old smokescreen to muddy the waters and take the spotlight off of the real issue - bigotry and racism.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anti-Semite

snip

The political writer Wilhelm Marr is credited with coining the German word Antisemitismus in 1873, at a time when racial science was fashionable in Germany but religious prejudice was not. This term was offered as an alternative to the older German word Judenhass, meaning Jew-hatred.

snip

[Clark2008]

87. Then just say anti-Jewish!

That would clear up ANY muddy waters there are!

That would pinpoint EXACTLY what you perceive to be the bigotry against a group of people for their faith and heritage and would not lump into these groups of bigots the lot of other Semitic people throughout the entire world.

I'm not arguing that there isn't anti-Jewish sentiment in this world - or even anti-Arab sentiment or anti-American sentiment - there is all SORTS of bigotry. That was never my point.

My point is that in most other countries, directly effected by Semitic influence, including all the Arab countries, they don't understand how they can be termed to be against themselves. And, if you read history, it doesn't make sense.

[k_jerome]

88. I know, you are arguing to redefine a term that has been in...

usage for over a hundred years for what purpose? I don't see it advancing any debate here.

[H2O Man]

197. Two of my favorite

political philosophers spoke about the importance of words. It is said that when asked what he would do if he were placed in political power, Confucius stated that he would insist that words be used correctly. And Minister Malcolm X encouraged his followers to study philology, so that they could correctly express their thoughts.

While I disagree with 99% of the things the OP expresses on DU, I think it is important to recognize that while the term "Semite" includes both Jews and Arabs today (and in ancient times included the Aramaeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Phoenicians), and the Semitic languages include the Afro-Asiatic group of Arabic, Aramic, Ethiopic, and Hebbrew, in today's English, "anti-Semitic" means anti-Jewish. It does not include any of the other Semitic peoples.

[malaise]

214. I disagree H2OMan

I am anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish but attacks on my views are painted as anti-Semetic. My great grandfather was Jewish and not Zionist - big difference.

[H2O Man]

222. Actually

that has nothing to do with what I posted. I am not saying anything on DU is anti-Semitic. I was merely commenting on the correct definition of the word. I do not endorse the way some people refer to many opinions of Israel on DU as anti-Semitic.

[malaise]

229. I wasn't suggesting that

at all. You mentioned that 'in today's English, "anti-Semitic" means anti-Jewish' and I disagreed with that because while I do not support Zionism, I am not anti-Jewish. I do not consider myself anti-Semetic at all. I separate Zionist beliefs from Jewish beliefs but sadly my critics see any critisism of Israel as anti-semetic. I agree with you for not endorsing 'the way some people refer to many opinions of Israel as anti-Semetic'. While I accept that in today's English, anti-Semetic does not include the other Semetic groups, the view of most people I know is that it is the defenders of Zionism who see any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism and not the majority of English users.

[Leopolds Ghost]

259. The problem with that, H20Man, is that the peoples of Israel and Palestine

As they exist today, are closely related. More closely related than random Israeli is to a random 3rd-generation American person who was raised Jewish.

That's because most Israelis can trace their ancestry back as mostly Jewish, and the Hebrews who suffered the diaspora and the Palestinians who stayed behind were essentially the same people, separated only by religious belief.

If you go into even more detail, at least genetically, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are Arab -- they are the same people as the Canaanites, Syrians and Philistines. Archaeologists have disproved the notion that the original Hebrews (who were pretty much the same as the Nabateans, i.e. Arab) somehow "wiped out" the Canaanites.

The languages and other cultural similarities (especially considering that much of the Israeli population is of Sephardic or Iraqi origin who were quite well integrated into Middle Eastern society before the tragedy of 1948) must also be taken into account.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no different in my mind than the Northern Ireland conflict.

Anyone who tries to elevate Israelis from Arabs as a separate ethnic / racial group because many Israelis happen to be of European descent is a racist, not an anti-semite. This is precisely what Nazis do, in fact.

It is a totally different situation than anti-semitism in the US, which is rooted in the extreme left and right where people go looking for invisible enemies. Psychologically, Jews fulfil the same function for American and European wackos as leprechauns, aliens (both "little green men") or russian communists.

Anyone who continues to go on about the dying herd of right-wing anti-semites (who do most of the talking and trolling on the internet) is a shit-stirrer and troll-bait. Most people who are opposed to anti-semitism in good conscience (and not just because of a nationalist pro-Israel axe to grind) figured that out long ago.

[Ravenseye]

86. Come on

1) Nobody disputes that Arabs and Jews are both Semitic peoples, just that the term "anti-semitism" was originally only in reference to jews and not arabs, and that to this day it maintains that general conotation.

2) The whole "Khazar" thing is racist crap, if you didn't know. DNA evidence shows Ashkenazi Jews Y chromosone has a middle eastern origin, and they were a tracked community throughout history, the roman empire, the franks, and europe for 1500 years. There was no Khazar thing, which essentialy was an argument to take away any rights of return to the middle east.

3) As an Arab with many Arab friends and family, I'll say that we don't get upset about the use of the term anti-semitism in general discussion. We realize it means anti-jew. We just object to it's usage when talking about us in reference to Israel, and not a Jewish person in general. For instance if a european said "stupid heeb" no rational arab would argue against using the term "antisemitic", however if an arab is making an argument against the existance of Israel as a forced entity, they might take argument with that being called an anti-semitic argument, as they feel that they are also semites, that the argument isn't against the jewish people, but just the israeli state. It's complicated, but it's not just a general problem with the term.

[Ravenseye]

83. Well as an Arab

I see BTA's point. I've made the argument before that Arabs are semites, because sometimes in arguments it just sounds ludicrous "He's anti-semite" when refering to a semitic person.

HOWEVER, the term anti-semite has been coopted to be that way, and really initially refered not to all semitic peoples (jews, arabs, assyrians, etc) but to jews specifically. This was the origination of the term. Sure maybe we can split the word apart and there should be a better term in use today, but when someone says anti-semite I know what they mean. They mean anti-jew.

Anti-semite is NEVER used as meaning anti-arab but not anti-jew. Never. To me that says that the semantic arguments about arabs being semites are generally not so much about a desired inclusion into the term, but a desire within the argument to declare that the jew and arab are not so different after all. If an Arab says "I'm a semite too" he's identifiying himself in a group WITH the jew, not in opposition but standing in brotherhood. He might not agree with Israel, or like matzo balls, but he's saying "Hey...we're both semites..."

Kind of like if brothers were to fight and one brother were to say to the other one "you don't like me because i'm anti-Johnson Family" and the other brother would reply "No, i'm part of the Johnson family too. I don't like you because you stole my ball." Except with guns and bombs and murder and death. Charming eh?

[izzybeans]

90. Very good post. I think you hit something important in terms of

the politics of semantics.

[Leopolds Ghost]

261. This is what I was trying to say in an earlier post

Where I pointed out that Israelis and Palestinians, to the extent that they have any identity at all separate from their European or Arab heritage, are both descended for all intents and purposes from the Canaanites, and not from the Arabs or the original Hebrews. (who were both from the same area.) It really is an argument about religion, and the use of religion to control/protect the citizenry, or to create an imagined fictitious "Jew" or "Arab" out of anyone from that family heritage (like in Rwanda), or people in Israel and the surrounding countries who try to turn it into an ethnic/nationalist thing instead of a Northern Ireland type thing who are doing the real damage here. It's like the forces that drove apart the Muslims and Christians in Bosnia (also closely related.)

[cali]

92. Yes, yes

we all know your marital history; you've repeated it ad nauseum. That hardly adds to your authority on the subject. Antisemitism has nothing to do with Arabs- at least in its current and historical usage. it was coined by on Wilhelm Marr in Germany over 130 years ago to describe his philosophy of jew hatred. In academic, journalistic and common usage it is still used to describe anti Jewish sentiment. As far as the etymology goes, lots of words are not faithful to their etymological roots- and I do mean lots of words. Is it possible that the meaning of the word could change? Sure, but simply insisting that it doesn't mean what it so obviously does mean, and has meant throughout the history of its usage, is not going to do it.

[nashville_brook]

96. word.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Poll_Blind]

125. Indeed! ThomCat speaks the Truth. And it's one people can easily...

...check using their search function.

PB

[Ravenseye]

89. Good post, though I'd disagree with a few points

Generally I agree with your post about 95%. I would just put forward a couple of points.

1) There aren't many starred, 1000+ post members who are making those anti-semitic comments. There have been a couple, but for the most part, as evidenced in this thread, they are low post, non-donating posters. As a public board you can't take really anybody's posts (even someone with thousands of posts, who have donated a few bucks) as evidence of anything on the left. You just dont' know who is a troll or isn't. I'm not saying that there ISNT anti-semitism on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm just saying that a public message board post isn't evidence for that.

2) While I agree with most of your definitions of anti-semitism, I would separate out Israel. I think this is a main bone of contention between two sides of anti-semitism definition. One side includes the existance of Israel, the right of Israel to exist, etc as part of the definition of 'jewishness'. As in if you don't think Israel has "a right to exist" or if you think that it should never have been created, some people would call that anti-semitism, while others would call it anti-israel, or anti-zionist. It's a tough one. Some anti-zionists are most definately anti-semites as well, but just because someone is anti-israel/anti-zionist does NOT make them anti-semitic, as you imply in a couple of points with "the world can do with one less Jewish nation" That COULD be an anti-semitic remark, but I wouldn't necessarily it is. That I think is a main disagreement between my view and yours. I don't see a person's views of the existance of Israel as being an indicator of hatred of jews.

[ThomCat]

103. There is a third catagory

of people who agree with Israel's right to exist and support that existance, but do not support Israel's right to be a terrorist nation and persistent violator of human rights. We support Israel enough to want Israel to be a good country that lives up to humanitarian standards. Blind support for an in-humane government does not help Israel in the long run and does nothing to help Jewish people around the world.

[Annces]

91. In Memorian for all the posters who got chased out

Free speech - hmmm.

[JNelson6563]

94. As long as we recognize

the difference between the Israeli government and the Jewish people. Personally I often take issue with the gov. of Israel but I have no issues with Jewish people. Those I know/have known in RL are some of the most caring and generous people I've come across and they've taught me much about approaching things with a more open and accepting perspective. Many would agree this is very unlike the government of Israel. Again, I think it's important we differentiate between the two.

Hope it's all good in your world BTA! :toast:

Cheers,
Julie

[nashville_brook]

95. the new "coded" anti-semitism -- criticism of Israel's wars

[cali]

99. You clearly read

a different post than I did. That is NOT what the OP said. Good job totally missing the point and twisting words. Just charming.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[cali]

154. The number of deleted messages on this thread

is disturbing.

[ThomCat]

156. Yes, especially given how innocuous

those posts were. Deleted on technicalities.

[cali]

174. In all honesty

I've missed the deleted posts, but I doubt that they're being deleted on technicalities. And with your bias, and your insistence that there is no antisemitism on DU, I can scarcely take your word for it.

[ThomCat]

178. I'm proudly biased in favor of human rights,

humane laws, and holding governments accountable for what they do. Guilty as charged.

I don't stand by and solute while any country commits attrocities, and I have very little respect for people who do.

[cali]

187. That wasn't

what I was referring to when I stated you had a bias. I've seen your posts insisting that there is no antisemitism on DU.

[ThomCat]

189. Funny. I've never written such a post.

Given that I've alerted on a post I considered anti-semetic, your statement is entirely absurd.

[survivor999]

100. Just wanted to have post #100 in this thread

But I have nothing to say that has not already been said.

[dionysus]

101. I really have to wonder about one statement here

They are the ones that use the terms “kike,” “Jew boy” (reference to Lieberman), “heeb” (reference to Bob Dylan), or “Jew president” (reference to Bush).

With the exception of the use of “kike,” every aforementioned example has appeared at DU!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a hard time believing genuine DUers (excluding the usual freepers and trolls) would use phrases like "heeb", "jew boy", or "jew president". I have never seen it. I have see nyou make this claim many times. Since anyone who posted that crap would be banned and the posts deleted, I can't ask you to prove it, but I really doubt DUers would be throwing slurs like "heeb" around.

[Poll_Blind]

123. My experience here backs up your assertions. I have never seen...

...those slurs tossed around by anyone except from a troll already on fire and with one wing gone.

PB

[nashville_brook]

145. There's actually a magazine called Heeb: the new jew review

http://heebmagazine.com/

http://heebmagazine.com/magazine/magazine_issue10.php

i cannot believe... but would love to hear... how this is antisemitic

[cracksquirrel]

146. Yes there is

And it's damned funny.
But needless to say:
Tongue-in-cheek humor 'zine = \ = anti-semitism...
Precisely the same reason Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock aren't labeled bigots or racists while when the local Klan rally says some similar things to jokes made by Dave or Chris, it IS racism. It's complicated, but hey, I'm sure you've got at least a 6th grade education, you can figure it out.

[voter x]

102. Excellent

Thanks for always putting into words what I can't. I didn't think I could make it through the entire thread, though....UGH!:grr:

[oc2002]

106. What a silly RANT could have been summarized as anyone criticizing Israel

will be labeled anti-semitic.

proof:
"Coded, or covert, anti-Semitics is much more tricky. Different words are used in place of “Jew,” and some people know that they are spouting anti-Semitism; others do not. The ones using coded words, such as “Zionist,” are harder to weed out and infinitely more insidious. The problem is some words, such as Zionist, are not always anti-Semitic, nor is its use always anti-Semitic. However, nothing is worse than a bigot who doesn’t just come out and admit it!"


By your definitions then scholars like Norman Finklestien is an anti-semite because he wrote a book that explains in great details the atrocities committed by Israel over the last 40 years on Palestinian people.

What a perfect example of how the anti-semitic flag is used to smear any criticismm of Israel and US policy in the middle east.

[nashville_brook]

147. like, why not just look at a person's *behavior*

you can't ascribe intent willy nilly on top of the language people use. you can't just re-word people's words.

if you can't make the argument that someone is anti_semitic in their behavior... then you're making a shaky/crazy assertion... that people might even be anti_semitic and not know it!

[AlienGirl]

217. Does this go for other bigotry as well?

If Rush Limbaugh hires gay people and has gay friends, does that mean he's not "really" a homophobe?

Tucker

[Lilith Velkor]

223. Maybe

I don't understand how or why people establish and maintain friendships with people against whom they are prejudiced. This is very confusing to me.

[Behind the Aegis]

167. What a perfect example of...

"Some will say they use the “disclaimer” because they ‘fear’ being called an anti-Semite, especially if discussing Israel. That seems to be the new “charge,” preemptively claiming to be accused of bigotry, when no such charge has been leveled. These are usually the ones too, who claim someone who challenges their point, again usually about Israel, that the challenger is really calling him/her an anti-Semite."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

108. I'm anti-nationalist of any stripe.

Whether it's Zionism, Pan-Arabism, Amercanism, Aryanism, or any other form of it. The notion that my race/ethnic group/religion is special, deserving of special treatment, and above criticism is as abhorrant to me as "My country, right or wrong."

To say that "the Jews must have a homeland" is as absurd as the "the Muslims must have a homeland" or "the Christians must have a homeland". Or, "homosexuals must have a homeland", "blacks must have a homeland", "whites must have a homeland", "Asians must have a homeland".

I see no difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber and an Israeli pilot killing civilians to "protect" their tribe. Just as I see no difference between a Sunni sniper gunning down Shia pilgrims and the I.R.A. (my tribe) blowing up Protestants. They are all murderers.

I'm a white, American, heterosexual, right-handed, male of Irish ancestry. I feel no "loyalty" to any of those appelations. Nor do I feel that being that being white, American, heterosexual, right-handed, or male, entitles me to be above criticism because of those appelations. All of them came about due to chance of birth.

I value the lives of Jews every bit as much as I value the lives of Muslims or Catholics or Buddhists or Agnostics. I value the lives of Israelis as much as I value the lives of Palestinians or Iraqis or Kurds or Tongans or Hondurans.

What I regret is that we feeled compelled to identify ourselves in such terms and differentiate ourselves from the "others".

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” - Thomas Jefferson

[blindpig]

111. coded words?

What do you mean by that? How is mention of the Zionists movement insidious? Or is the history of the Zionists movement insidious? Is it some made up horseshit like the Protocols or is it a record of oppression and land theft not dissimilar to what was done to the native inhabitants of this country?

Your post is about suppressing discussion of the crimes of Israel, nothing else.

[nashville_brook]

116. right on!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[AntiFascist]

160. It might be useful to compare the term "Zionism" with "gay agenda"....

Many gay people are very guarded and often embarassed when they hear someone use the term "gay agenda" because it is so often used by the right-wing in a very negative way: "the gay agenda is where gays try to convert young people into perverts." But, if someone points out that the "gay agenda" spells out nothing more than freedom from oppression, then it doesn't sound so bad. Also, I would say that it is very important to maintain such an agenda as long as necessary.

[Violet_Crumble]

281. Use of the term "Zionism" depends...

It all depends on what words are around it. Things like 'Zionist entity' 'Zionist regime' etc usually get the alarm bells pinging, but use of the term Zionist is legitimate when discussing Zionism and its role in the creation of Israel...

[Marr]

114. Apparently, "coded anti-semitism" is what's committed

whenever you need to demonize someone who is critical of Israeli policy. I'm sorry, but I've seen you casually toss out the "anti-semite" label too many times.

I'd also disagree with your point about Jews being anti-semites. It's nothing at all like saying "I can't be a racist, because I have black friends". It's more like saying, "I can't be a white supremacist because I'm black". It might be technically possible, I suppose- but it's pretty damned unlikely. Kneejerk Israel supporters see anti-semitic Jews behind every tree, because there's alot of thoughtful criticism of Israeli policy coming from Jews.

[nashville_brook]

115. word up.

[izzybeans]

117. I read it more like rightwing christians who tell liberal christians

they hate christianity for not buying into christian nationalism.

Same rhetoric here.

[nashville_brook]

119. omg -- EMERGING MEME alert!

you are so totally correct on this!

it's fundamentalism.
it's nationalism.

anyone who demures from NATIONALISTIC FUNDAMENTALISM is painted with a brush so foul that ALL debate is stopped.

guess what guys -- you ain't stoppin' me.

i'm not anti-semtic. i can OPPOSE your blind nationalism... your inflexibility of mind... your fundamentalism... and NOT be worried in the least with your retribution.

phhhhbbbbt!

[Leopolds Ghost]

251. I made the same point ("Put the Christ back in Christianity")

And my post was banished to the Religion "dungeon". When I asked why, I got a snarky reply from the moderator that indicated he/she had no love for any subject touching upon religion... although posts decrying attacks on atheism, and posts making attacks on religious people, had survived on the main board.

Nor have Behind The Aegis' continuous musings about anti-semitism been treated in such a cavalier manner.

(which resemble the musings about racism in Hollywood that Denzel Washington continually emphasized before he got an Oscar, as if to indicate that such a serious topic as racism was a good excuse for him to blow a gasket if he didn't win that particular battle.)

Try posting something in an attempt to disassociate Christianity from Republicanism and see how far you will get. Unlike this thread, you'll get modded and sent to Religion forum.

For that matter, try posting something in an attempt to disassociate Judaism from the policies of the Israeli Government, because Behind the Aegis has not done so, yet he/she criticizes Muslims for not doing the same with regards to terrorism committed by Islamic hate groups.

I don't wish to understate the importance of anti-semitism on the left, it's a huge handicap, the further left you go the more it contaminates things. (It is, after all the socialism of fools.) But we also see that in Israel, where anti-semitism can only be directed outwards and numerous Russian orthodox guys have been moving in, Likudnik Anti-Arab nationalism has become the socialism of fools. The problem is, Arabs have been anti-semitic for a while now (partly due to fascism during WWII and partly due to Israel's actions immediately thereafter) and further hostility is not going to change that.

[Bretttido]

130. I find this OP to be a direct attack on valid debates.

I do not recall any anti-semitism as you have perceived it, until the recent Israeli government's onslaught of terror on the Lebanese people. (Which surprise, surprise, was planned jointly with the Bush administration) Many comments directed against Israel's behavior have been erroneously labeled as anti-semitic. Pushing the idea that posters on DU use "coded anti-semitism" is an inhibitor to valid debate, as people's arguments against Israeli actions will be twisted and reorganized in heads as evidence of anti-semitism. My argument here may well be viewed as anti-semetic by some. But frankly, I have no time to argue with those who come to such absurd conclusions.

[The Magistrate]

136. We Find Plenty Of That Article, Sir, And Remove It When We Do

Nor did it make its first appearance last month, as anyone involved in debating Middle Eastern matters here over the years may testify. Different people will certainly have different views of what constitutes coded and what consititutes open Anti-Semitism, but we have received complaints over both even from prominent opponents of Israel on occassion.

[nashville_brook]

143. well said!

mad props.

(watch yer back! :yoiks:)

[earth mom]

162. Agree, this is just another topic we are not allowed to debate...

because any protest against what's happening is immediately painted with the broad brush of anti-semitism. It's ridiculous.

All I want is that the ruthless slaughter of innocents be stopped. That goes for Israel and the U.S. any other country on this planet that is guilty of it.

Peace!

[Behind the Aegis]

164. But Israel is debated here all the time.

There is even a 'special' forum for it, so your argument falls flat!

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

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

[izzybeans]

171. The rules seem to be made in attempt to allow for civil discussion

It would be wise to reserve critique of them to making them more functional in that regard.

[Behind the Aegis]

172. You clearly said:

"Agree, this is just another topic we are not allowed to debate..." Then in this post you clearly state that it is debated, just not to your liking. Anyway, I had nothing to do with the creation of the I/P forum, it was in effect before I joined DU, so argument is not with me, but with the administration of DU. Perhaps you should write them and ask why the forum was created and ask why there are "special" rules regarding posts about Israel.

[earth mom]

182. Your entire OP clamps down discussion.

People are DAMNED if they ever open their mouths to protest the KILLING that is going on. I'm agnostic and was raised by atheist and agnostic parents. I'm not on any religions' side. I care about doing the right thing for ALL people.

Bottom line: I want the killing of innocents stopped!

Yet, that's not PC to say around here. Because of you and others like you twist it around and frame it in anti semitic rhetoric.

[Behind the Aegis]

183. That is simply not true.

Many people have protested the killings of innocents...there are 100s of threads that will back that up! There is also a forum that will back that up!

There is only one person "twisting" here, and that would be you!

[earth mom]

194. I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel this way.

That's why I haven't gone to the I/P forum. Sure, people have protested the killing of innocents while others quickly reply to them and insist that Israel has a right to defend herself. Well, that defense looks more like offense to me.

Until we are all united to stop the killing everywhere and that includes defending the reasons for it-we are lost as a civilization.

[The Magistrate]

244. In Other Words, Sir

So long as someone expresses any view different from your's on some matter, you consider discussion to be stifled?

[Bretttido]

246. self delete

[The Magistrate]

249. No Need For That, Sir

By all means, speak your piece as you would wish.

[Bretttido]

271. No No, I responded to the wrong post, lol

:hi:

[earth mom]

266. No. Discussion is stifled when people are painted as anti-semitic

for being against Israels warmongering.

p.s. I'm not a "sir".

[The Magistrate]

289. Discussion Is Stifled, Ma'am, Just As Surely

When people lead off with declarations they are going to be called Anti-Semitic for making some criticism or other. That is a mere posture and pretence, and attempting pre-emptively to put an opponent in the wrong from the start. The fact is that it does not occur here much. Accusations of bigotry are against the rules of the forum, and we receive almost no well-founded complaints of people being called Anti-Semitic by an opponent here. If it were as general as some declare it is, by way of a debating posture, we would.

Nor, Ma'am, is discussion advanced when people engage in mere vitriolic hyperbole and simplistic sloganeering. Nor is discussion advanced when people attack their opponents personally, claiming the views they hold show they are bad people, or trolling shills.

Discussion is advanced when people show respect for persons they disagree with, recognize that people may place a different interpretation on facts then they do themselves, and recognize the full range of the situation, rather than only those elements of it that might tend to butress their own view.

[izzybeans]

173. dupe

[Name removed]

272. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

273. Deleted message

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

[Poll_Blind]

131. Beyond Chutzpah : On The Misuse Of Anti-Semitism And The Abuse Of History

by Norman Finkelstein. I really recommend you read it. Don't be shocked by the continual citations backing up each of his points- I assume as a Dershowitz reader (e.g. The Case for Israel) citations of importance may be a new taste in your mouth. You might also read "The Case Against Israel" by Michael Neumann. And I'd be surprised if you haven't already but Amos Elon's Israelis: Founders and Sons(revised). Your interpretation of anti-Semitism goes beyond the sensitivity displayed even by Dershowitz, well-past the event horizon into a gravity well from which no rational criticism of Israel can be considered without the constant spectre of anti-Semitism being present.

  Many posters have chimed into this thread in response to your message to remind you that your own words accuse you of the rhetorical brinkmanship that you attempt to hover above by commenting on. I do not hold your own words in the past against you- people change. For instance, when I began to research the issue several years ago I had little idea of the variety of Zionists and so condemned them universally, thinking that all Zionists somehow represented the conservadox, neo-Jabotinskyites, crypto-Kahanists that cause so much trouble for Israel. Condemnation of all Zionists is something I will leave for individual Torah scholars- my beef with Zionists, Jewish Orthodoxy (specifically it's control over the corrupt civil institutions of Israel) of any flavor ends with the civil rights abuses of Palestinians, unreasonable aggression and influence by Israel on her neighbors and other countries and, of course, the enormous sums of money my country's government distributes to it to continue those policies.

  I challenge you to dedicate just 1/4 of the time that you spend reading literature which supports your opinions to that portion which represents the a scholarly criticism of it. The books mentioned above are a good start. Neither are particularly long, though much pithier than Dershowitz. Sink your teeth into those things to either A) strengthen your own opinions through point-by-point disagreement of either fact or interpretation or B) refine and streamline your views so that your ideas receive a more favorable response and represent a more articulated viewpoint.

PB

[ThomCat]

134. Best post in this entire thread.

:applause:

[Spazito]

140. Well said, excellent post! n/t

[Greyhound]

151. (Informal) recommendation for this reply. This is one of those issues that

seem to demand, and receives, blind allegiance. Ironic isn't it? :crazy:

[Taxloss]

234. If I might query a point here ...

Something that comes up time and again in this debate is the notion that Israel is wielding "unreasonable" influence (unreasonable being your word).

I find the idea of Israel, or any state, having "unreasonable" or "undue" influence rather odd. It suggests that each state in the world is "due" a certain amount of "reasonable" influence, no more, no less. I wonder how this influence is divided - by population, or land area, or GDP per head?

The idea of global influence-rationing is rather silly. Nevertheless this idea that Israel's soft power is somehow unfair or unreasonable persists among its critics. In my opinion, that says more about Israel's critics than it does about Israel - it suggests that they do not understand why Israel (the state and its people, not the present government per se) enjoys so much sympathy in the world.

[Poll_Blind]

236. You misunderstood that point. An example of the unreasonable...

...influence I speak of is destroying civilian infrastructure (hospitals, roads, civilians) in order to influence the people of Lebanon against Hezbollah, the destruction of similar appointments in Palestinian Occupied Territory, including the only power station, and to go back a ways and touch on other facets, little-touched-on things like supplying the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle (and Anastasio Somoza Garcia, his father) with UZIs and Galils, among other offensive military equipment, when the United States (along with just about every other government in the world) was boycotting his regime, or their love affair (and that is no exaggeration) with the White South African government, working on, developing and testing nuclear weapons together and, more-importantly to me, demonizing the ANC on the White South African government's behalf.

  That sort of influence. Now, after the first sentence in your response everything else is a constructed tangent based on your "interpretation" and your dismissal of it. We call that a straw man logical fallacy.

  I realize it might be convenient for you characterize a point that you wish to interpret with such sinister undertones (yet again, the implication of anti-Semitism or something far less, at least, than philo-Semitism) but convenience is often the last sanctuary one finds truth.

PB

[Taxloss]

290. If that is what you meant by "unreasonable ... influence on Israel's

neighbours and other countries", then you argued your point extremely poorly. Surely you must agree that that point can easily be read as "influencing other countries", and it is difficult to read it as "influencing Lebanon's population by attacking infrastructure". As for Israel's activites in Nicaragua and South Africa, you won't hear me condoning them (and I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that I do). It does suggest that your approach is heavily coloured by a long-standing grudge against Israel as a country rather than a problem with any particular action by Israel's present government.

You conveniently skip challenging the point I made. Considering the fact that I have seen you and others attacking the "undue" or "unreasonable" (perhaps "disproportionate"?) influence of AIPAC and other elements of Israeli soft power, I would think that you might have something to say about it.

As for your second paragraph, what you have done is carefully explain a simple concept to someone who already understood it perfectly. This was presumably done to dismiss hy question. in order to dismiss the reasonable question posed by that person. We call that "intensely patronising".

It seems BtA was spot on when identifying the tactic of pre-emptive denials of anti-semitism. Your concern that what you write might be taken as anti-semitism is noted, but I would suggest that it has as much to do with what you are writing as the perceived agenda of your audience. It might be called a straw-man argument in itself, but I just think of it as a passive-aggressive debating tactic. Here's a tip: treat me like an adult and I'll return the courtesy.

[nashville_brook]

135. YOU could very well be an ANITSEMITE and NOT KNOW IT!

aaaacccckkkkk!


:spray:

[cali]

138. But of course that's a true statement

most bigots DON'T believe that they themselves are bigoted. That's simply a truism.

[Lilith Velkor]

202. So is everyone who denies being a bigot...

...just a bigot in denial? Or not?

How does one tell the difference if one doesn't take people at their word and assumes they are speaking in code?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

208. Have you ever seen Larry David look into people's eyes

to see if they're telling the truth or not? Only here it's
typed words that you have to peer into instead of eyes.
Here, try it: I am not a bigot.

[Lilith Velkor]

211. Never heard of Larry David

Is that like those squiggly paintings that everyone says is a dolphin or a sailboat? I've stared at those things and all I ever see is a test pattern.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

213. He has a reality show called Curb Your Enthusiasm.

[Lilith Velkor]

227. eesh

Don't care for that show.

I'm gonna go with the preponderance of the evidence and say you are not a bigot.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

231. Whew!

[CrushTheDLC]

248. You never heard of Larry David? What are you, some kind of Anti-Semite??

Larry David was the co-creator of Seinfeld for G-d's sake!! What kind of a Jew hater doesn't know who Larry David is??:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Lilith Velkor]

267. Not funny.

I'm fucking sick of being called an anti-Semite just because I want the war to stop and my friends to be safe. I should be used to it by now, as often as I've been called anti-American just because I happen to understand the concept of blowback.

I know you are kidding and all, but it's not fucking funny. A lot of people are going to die because some fucking assholes cannot stop crying wolf.

[cali]

286. Of course not

How does one tell? Sometimes it's obvious. Sometimes it's more difficult. Personally, unless it's fairly obvious, it's best not to make the judgement that someone is a bigot, but really, quite often, it's just not difficult to make that judgement.

[Lilith Velkor]

287. Thanks for replying

I guess the word "bigot" is a bit like "slut" in that people tend to take offense to the label whether it's true or not.

I admit, the finer points of white-on-white prejudice tend to get lost on me (aside from sexism, because nobody tries to hide *that* anymore) because white-on-black opression is a huge issue where I live.

[AlienGirl]

218. You could be carrying anti-Semitic ideas and not know it...

[Lilith Velkor]

221. I still think payas make a man look sexy

...and I don't care if it's an anti-Semitic idea! ;)

[barb162]

137. Significant, insightful and wonderful 10,000th post

And CONGRATULATIONS to you too!!!!

[Phx_Dem]

139. Great post BtA

congrats for your 10,000 post!

[cracksquirrel]

142. Excellent post

Too bad about the thread though...
Started well... took an ugly turn with a buttload of "deleted post, username removed"s... got better for a while, then the Finkelsteiniks showed up and really got the party started. Way to read into the OP what you wanted / expected to see, rather than the genuine and balanced (if sometimes hyperbolic, but so what) sentiments expressed there. Golf claps for everyone.

[breakaleg]

150. On here, it seems as if disagreeing with Israeli policy is considered

anti-semitic. And it's a pretty effective way to silence Israel's critics.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

159. This is the new tactic I spoke of...

The OP was not about Israel, yet many are trying to make it about Israel. However, more to the point, your post is what I was talking about when I said: "That seems to be the new “charge,” preemptively claiming to be accused of bigotry, when no such charge has been leveled." Saying something like that is also just as effective of shutting down conversation because anyone that disagrees with your points, you will, in turn, accuse them of accusing you of anti-Semitism, even if they have not done so.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

163. Well, it was just a little bitty bit about Israel.

"Some will say they use the “disclaimer” because they ‘fear’ being called an anti-Semite, especially if discussing Israel. That seems to be the new “charge,” preemptively claiming to be accused of bigotry, when no such charge has been leveled. These are usually the ones too, who claim someone who challenges their point, again usually about Israel, that the challenger is really calling him/her an anti-Semite."

[Behind the Aegis]

165. Not really.

It was an example of when people claim that the charge of anti-Semitism is used against them. It has nothing to do with legitimate criticism of Israel. But, as you can see above, many people are trying to steer the conversation toward Israel, rather than discuss the topic of bigotry against Jewish people.

Check the Mel Gibson threads. That was about anti-Semitism, but see how many people brought "Israel" into the conversation.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

166. I guess my eyes deceived me.

[ProfessorGAC]

170. Now You're Dodging

The point of the post to which you're replying, is that absent in your OP was any boundaries between Israel and Judaism, where it ISN'T anti-Semitic when referring to Israel.

And, as we've discussed before: You seem awfully willing to infer anti-semitic sentiment where none is explicit, but refuse to acknowledge a reverse inference on the part of others. You consistently ask "Where did i call you an anti-semite?" Well, it is just as inferred as the anti-semitism you deduce.

Your argument just seem to convenient by half.
The Professor

[Behind the Aegis]

176. I am not sure what you are saying.

I did say in my OP: "Criticism against Israel is not always anti-Semitic, but it can be, but that is another thread." The person I was replying to was saying that comments against Israel, basically, aren't allowed because they will be construed as anti-Semitic. That is just patently false!

As for inferring anti-Semitism, usually I don't bother to comment, I just alert. There have been, recently, occasions where I will alert and respond, but that is not the norm for me. If I see a post as anti-Semitic and I alert on it and it stands from more than 24 hours, then I comment on it. To date, only one post that I alerted on has not been axed. However, I have been accused, multiple times, of implying that a poster was anti-Semitic when that wasn't even the case. Besides being against the rules to call someone out as a bigot, I generally don't mince words. This is not to say that sometimes I can be coy, but when it is about racism, I rarely do that!

Did that address what you were saying or did I miss the point all together?

[Emit]

192. Is anti-Semitism a form of racism? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

198. I think that is debatable.

It is definatly a form of bigotry, but racism, there are a couple of schools of thought on that "sticky wicket."

[Emit]

200. I asked because in your post above

#176 you implied that anti-Semitism is a form of racism.

[Behind the Aegis]

201. I see what you are saying.

"Bigotry" would have been a better choice of words. I was talking about "in general," not just specific to anti-Semitism. I probably would have written the same thing even if talking about homophobia, which is of course not a form of racism. It was nothing more than a lexicon gaffe. Sorry for the confusion.

[blindpig]

184. When is it not about Israel?

Damn seldom. Other than well known drunken wackiod fringe of the fringe Christians when else has the topic come up recently? Indeed, your post would not exist but for current events in the Middle East. Thou protest too much. Your aims are as clear as glass.

Boy, talk about tactics.....:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

185. You slap down your own arguement!

"When is it not about Israel?" "Damn seldom."

Despite your focus, there have been a number of times that anti-Semitism has cropped up and had nothing to do with Israel.

I guess anti-Semitism is all in my head, right? :eyes:

[blindpig]

193. I suppose at this time I should ask for links, evidence...

but don't bother, I wouldn't want you to strain yourself reaching so far.

"...all in your head..", of course not. But I've not seen it here, except for the occasional troll who gets squashed like a bug.

You should take note of the tale of the boy who cried wolf.

[Behind the Aegis]

196. Would that I could.

One, I cannot "call out" other posters. Two, most anti-Semitic posts are deleted, as they should be. However, to pretend that the anti-Semitism here is just from a few "trolls" is 'blind,' indeed. Perhaps you shouldn't tell me what my experiences are and stick to your own experiences.

[blindpig]

203. Convenient for you.

So I should take your word for it.

Naw.

[Behind the Aegis]

204. Don't take my word for it...

...read the rules of DU and if you doubt that there has been anti-Semitic remarks, scroll up and read what The Magistrate had to say. Perhaps, you will infer he is a liar too?

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

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

[cracksquirrel]

175. You seem to have taken a wrong turn...

The directions specifically said LEFT at Albequerque.

This is a thread explicity not about Israel / Hezbollah / LizardMenFromTheCenterOfTheEarth, as was stated many times by the OP.

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

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

[TheFriedPiper]

180. as an Arab, I find your exclusion of other semites racist

[Behind the Aegis]

181. How so?

I didn't "coin" the word. The origin of the word had to do with warped mentality of the creator thinking that "Semites" (Jews) were sub-human. I doubt that he even knew that Arabs and other groups were also considered Semites. From a linguistic stand point, the word doesn't make much sense. However, it was used to describe hate against Jews and the word stuck. Trying to reassign the meaning of the word is simply dishonest.

[cali]

190. And I find

your comment ridiculous. There was absolutely nothing racist about the OP. It's hardly the posters fault that antisemitism means and has always meant, hostility toward Jews.

[readmoreoften]

207. *Sigh* Once again: you can't deny the historical meaning of a word.

History of meaning plays a part in linguistic analysis. There is nothing "logical" about clinging to ahistoric, literal analyses of words.

Are all homophobes literally "afraid" of homosexuality?

Are all gays literally happy and joyous?

Are all lesbians from the Isle of Lesbos?

Do Klan members never target Indians because they are Caucasians too?

Are Klan members not anti-black because they sometimes dress in black clothing and write with pens that use black ink?

Is it impossible for Mexicans to be anti-American because Mexico is a part of North America?

[Nikki Stone 1]

188. Answered my own question

delete

[treestar]

191. It is not anti-semitic to say it has been overused and watered down

A card played too often will lose its effectiveness.

There's no word for anti-Arab/Muslim hatred and yet that's the most dangerously acceptable in America today. Those are the people I'm worried about "them" "coming for" first - in this time and place, at least.

[Behind the Aegis]

195. Some say the same about racism, in general.

I am not saying that people haven't misused the word or mislabeled actions, because that does happen.

"There's no word for anti-Arab/Muslim hatred and yet that's the most dangerously acceptable in America today. Those are the people I'm worried about "them" "coming for" first - in this time and place, at least." You are wrong, partly. While there is no specific word for anti-Arab bigotry, there is one for anti-Muslim...Islamaphobia.

[Solon]

199. Actually you are right...

Though I WILL say there is a double standard on this board, during the recent conflict, I saw someone straight up say that an Israeli life is worth more than an Arab life, and yet the post wasn't deleted. Hell, there was a post, when that Israeli Arab girl was killed by a Hezbollah rocket that said it was just "friendly fire" in a snarky way. That type of racism shouldn't be tolerated either.

[Bretttido]

205. I can think of a word used exclusively for Arabs/Muslims.... Terrorists

[ThomCat]

209. I didn't realize that the unibomber or Tim McVey

were Arab or Muslim. Funny.

[Bretttido]

210. There are always exception

I'm talking as a whole. Were the Vietcong during the Vietnam war regularly called terrorists? Are the militia in darfur regularly called terrorists?

[ThomCat]

216. The IRA were called terrorists, as another example.

The subway gas attack in Japan back in the 90s was called Terrorism. Terrorism happens all over the world. It is neither exclusively Arab nor exclusively Muslim. The idea that terrorism is somehow an Arab/Muslim phenomenon is a racist generalization about hundreds of millions of people.

[AlienGirl]

219. The ALF is one of the "top ten most wanted" terrorist organizations

[Bretttido]

225. I stand corrected with the IRA.

Note that the perpetrators remain unknown the Japan subway attack though.

I do not *personally* relate terrorism to muslims/arabs; I was referring to how the US media / republicans generally refer to militia acts perpetrated by arabs as terrorism; while the same acts committed by non-arab groups are not necessarily referred to as terrorism.

[ThomCat]

233. Actually, the cult in Japan

was broken up, and the head of that cult was convicted.

[Bretttido]

247. You are correct again, Sir.

For some reason I had the impression over the years that they were never caught. :shrug:

[IChing]

212. So Is Noam Chomsky in your "book" anti-Semite?

Just somebody that wants to know.

[Lilith Velkor]

224. That's been a litmus test for me

A good friend of mine went totally David Horowitz on me recently, and an affirmative answer to that question was how I found out, and wrote him off as a nutbar.

[IChing]

228. Yes, but I asked the OP

David Horowitz would be a litmus test for me also as would Noam for there is no sitting on the intellectual fence, when he clams that Chomsky is anti-Semitic.

So I would really like to have the OP state her opinion, on which side of the intellectual fence she stands..

"I’m not anti-semantic
some of my best friends are words." IChing

[Lilith Velkor]

230. I know, I'm just making conversation while u wait

>"I’m not anti-semantic
some of my best friends are words." IChing<

:rofl:

[Poll_Blind]

238. I brought some beer, herbal tea and a Scrabble board- it'll be a WHILE.n/t

PB

[Behind the Aegis]

237. Not that I am aware of.

He has some radically stupid comments about Israel and some of this linguistic theories are, let's just say..."interesting." But is he anti-Semitic? I haven't seen anything that suggests that, but it doesn't mean that he isn't. I haven't read everything he has written.

[Poll_Blind]

240. Could you please enunciate these "radically stupid comments" about....

...Israel?

Thank you,

PB

[Behind the Aegis]

242. I'd have to find a recent piece.

Why do you even care? I am guessing you don't and this is nothing more than baiting.

[Wonk]

245. Here you go: chomsky.info

http://www.chomsky.info/articles.htm

Were you ever planning on updating your avatar or do you prefer your jaggy pixelated version?

Old (current) version


New (from post #34)

[IChing]

258. And this is the other side

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz1.asp

[IChing]

250. No it is not baiting, I want an answer

I asked a question which you did not answer.

Two Jews that disagree where do you stand?

[Behind the Aegis]

253. Ummm...I did answer you.

[IChing]

256. You answered nothing to me.

except to fain ignorance between those two
Where do you stand?

[Behind the Aegis]

257. Yes I did...

IChing (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-23-06 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
212. So Is Noam Chomsky in your "book" anti-Semite?
Just somebody that wants to know.

Behind the Aegis (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-23-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #212
237. Not that I am aware of.
He has some radically stupid comments about Israel and some of this linguistic theories are, let's just say..."interesting." But is he anti-Semitic? I haven't seen anything that suggests that, but it doesn't mean that he isn't. I haven't read everything he has written.
Force without wisdom falls of its own weight -- Horace

Seems you asked me a question and I answered it.

[IChing]

262. "but it doesn't mean that he isn't. "

So another no comment


"Force without wisdom falls of its own weight" -- Horace


"Knowledge is the antidote to fear.
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true names."

So where do you stand?

[Behind the Aegis]

263. I have already told you!

I said "not that I am aware of," but I don't know him personally. So the possibility always exists. So I have told you repeatedly! From his writings, I haven't seen anything that would indicate he is anti-Semitic. From his interviews, I haven't seen anything that indicates he is anti-Semitic.

[IChing]

264. "So the possibility always exists."

He can be a jew and be anti-sementic?

So now as I asked first
where do you stand on his dialogues with Horowitz?

[Behind the Aegis]

265. I think you're confused.

One, you never asked me about his dialogs with Horowitz (show me this post, because I can't find it). And two, just because someone is a member of a group doesn't mean that they cannot be "anti" that same group (Roy Cohn).

[IChing]

268. "I think you're confused you never asked me about his dialogs with Horowit

OK

so you can't find my original post
and follow my threads of thoughts that enables you to comment on it at the end of it?
.
and I am confused that you are answering it
without reading the start, middle or end?

You are right, I think I am confused now.

PEACE

no irony here

[Behind the Aegis]

269. You are wanting me to answer you never asked.

I answered your original question. Then you started commenting to other people. I wasn't involved in those discussions. So, yes, you are indeed confused, because the one question you asked me, I answered, just not to your satisfaction, it would seem.

[IChing]

270. If you want peace..............which I hope you do

Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.
--Buddha

Peace is the only battle worth waging.
--Albert Camus

Don't forget Camus was one of George's summer reading assignments.

[Lilith Velkor]

288. Hey BtA, congrats on 10K!

I looked up Roy Cohn, man that guy was a creep. I see some similarities between him and Horowitz. Would you say Horowitz is an anti-Semite?

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[Nikki Stone 1]

232. So, when is criticizing Israeli policy NOT coded anti-semitism?

Seriously.

If someone is concerned that Israel is committing war crimes, responsible for an environmental disaster in the Mediterranean, or non acting in good faith with the Palestinians. is this anti-semitism?

I've seen people accused of anti-semitism for this and I wondered what the author's take was on this.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

241. When it is not.

:)

"If someone is concerned that Israel is committing war crimes, responsible for an environmental disaster in the Mediterranean, or non acting in good faith with the Palestinians. is this anti-semitism?" Those statements are not anti-Semitic.

Have you ever read the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?" If you haven't, you really should. That is a great example of anti-Semitism and many of the things there pop up from time to time. Some of the "coded" slurs come in the form of classic anti-Semitism with the word "Israel" where the word "Jew" would be. It is tricky because Israel is a state and not a person. However, there is anti-Semitism when discussing Israel, and then there is plain ol' bigotry when discussing Israel. Sometimes when bigoted remarks are made about Israel they are called anti-Semitic, right;y or wrongly.

[Nikki Stone 1]

260. I've heard of the Protocols, of course, but

have never read them. So I guess those references would be lost on me.

My biggest problem is that someone who honestly has a problem with Israel's foreign policy might get labeled anti-semitic, and that tends to put a real damper on genuine debate. That is why people like Chomsky are kind of like guideposts. Yet people have referred to Chomsky as a "self-hating Jew" because of his opinions on Israel. There HAS to be a way of separating an ethnic/religious group from a government with a specific foreign policy.

[Name removed]

277. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

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

[bridgit]

252. is it "anti-Semitic" to suggest that Israel distribute water rights...

equitably to the inhabitants of the region?

[Behind the Aegis]

255. No.

[savemefromdumbya]

254. I can say that the Isreali government is dreadful!

Most Israeli people are nice including my relatives but I don't like what's in control in Israel.

I don't like the way the US and Israel are in cahoots. I don't like the way there are corrupt people in the US government/officials and they are even Jewish!

[Lithos]

274. Excellent post, sir

Thank you for taking the time to write it.

:thumbsup:

L-

[Stockholm]

275. Important post BTA!

Thank you for taking the time.

My only beef with your op is it that you omit the dangers of your broad characterizations of anti-semitism. As bad you feel about a bigot not coming out and admitting it, as bad I feel about a pro-Israeli poster not coming out and calling a position or view anti-semitic or even the poster if you think he/she is one. I have seen what you call "coded" and "covert" anti-Semite calls like rolling eyes smilies etc. and they are just as tricky to decode as are "coded" anti-semitism.

One of the gains by calling someones views anti-semitic is that the burden of proof falls on the right person, the accuser and he/she must address what in the post is anti-semitic.

[Behind the Aegis]

276. The rules of the forum.

It is not permitted to call a poster anti-Semitic. As for calling out posts, I feel it is more important to alert and have the post removed.

I think it is interesting that you think :eyes: is covert calls of anti-Semitism. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I use :eyes: and no comment it is because the post is too silly, stupid, or ridiculous for comment. So, if you see my posts with that, it is not because I think the post is anti-Semitic. Chances are that you will never see a comment from me about an anti-Semitic post, it is rare I post to them, I usually just alert and let the mods handle them.

[Wonk]

278. Roughly how many times have you alerted on posts in this thread?

There are quite a number that have been deleted, and I've seen two posters tombstoned so far, though there may have been more.

Oh, and is there any special reason you haven't updated your avatar? Do you need some technical assistance? Or do you prefer the pixelated one?

[Behind the Aegis]

279. I didn't alert on any.

By the time I went to bed, every post was still there, except one. When I checked DU at 1pm CST, there were several posts already axed. There are quite a few that I haven't even seen.

I haave nothing to do with tombstoning posters. I am not a mod.

Is there any special reason you keep bringing up my avatar? I like it just fine the way it is.

[JohnLocke]

292. Why do you care?

I should hope that you're not upset about the tombstoning of anti-Semites?

[Violet_Crumble]

280. How to deal with antisemitism...

This is due to me having read some posts elsewhere from weirdos who seem to think that dealing with antisemitism involves showing bigotry against other groups. How to deal with it is not to become a bigot against other groups of people, not to screech at other people that they're antisemitic, but to try to explain to them *why* what they're saying is considered antisemitic. Of course there's those who do carry on like DU is infested with antisemitism while quite happily using derogatory terms for other groups of people. Personally I've got no time for them or what they have to think or say about antisemitism, coz they're a bunch of hypocrites as far as I'm concerned...

[AntiFascist]

282. I feel that recent events in the Israel / Lebanon conflict have....

brought about the worst in some DUers, but I also feel that DU has come a long way in accepting certain criticisms over the years. I recall several years ago when a few of us became very vocal against neoconservatives and some were criticizing that, alone, as reflecting an anti-semitic viewpoint. Now, as people are beginning to criticize the actions of Israel directly, it seems that there are more concrete bigotry-related problems to deal with on the left.

[Violet_Crumble]

283. The recent events aren't the only time the worst comes out...

The worst also came out in some DUers over the Mohammed cartoon thingy and the Dubai ports deal. It's just that those times it was different DUers and the bigotry was aimed at a different group of people...

[AntiFascist]

284. I do recall being labelled Islamo-phobic during the Dubai...

ports ordeal because I, and others, basically didn't trust the UAE taking over the ports. We had to explain until we were blue in the face the various money-laundering connections involved in 911, and how these could be related to the banking officials and other people handling exports/imports. I guess you can't win for losing.

[Violet_Crumble]

285. I never saw yr posts, so I don't know what you said...

But there were definately DUers who made bigoted posts against Muslims and Arabs during both episodes, and they were just as loud and disgusting as the antisemitic contingent have been. Yr not trying to claim that there was no bigotry displayed during those periods, I hope?

[AntiFascist]

291. No, I'm sure there were bigoted posts, but I also wonder how...

many of those posts are genuine, or are just made in order to make DUers look bad. The cartoon ordeal seemed like it was a big media ploy used to stir up and exploit Arab hatred, or the appearance of hatred.