Legitimate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism

[Little Tich]

Source: The National (Ireland), May 3, 2016, by Sholto Byrnes

Barack Obama has been trying to finalise the details of the largest-ever package of military aid that America has ever delivered to another country. If you knew that this package was for Israel, but that prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the hurdle standing in the way of its completion – because he reckoned that $40 billion (Dh147bn) over 10 years wasn’t good enough – your reaction might well be one of outrage.

If so, would that constitute one or more of the following: anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism or criticism of the current Israeli government and its policies and attitudes? It might be suggested that Mr Netanyahu is an undiplomatic warmonger who White House officials have reportedly described over the years as “recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous and ‘aspergery’," according to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic.

Outside of a small but influential right-wing coterie, he is regarded as an impediment to any peace process with the Palestinians, and a leader who, quite improperly, involved himself in the last American presidential election. Who cares under what category disagreement with him falls?

But such distinctions do matter, very much, as the former London mayor Ken Livingstone found out last week, when he was suspended from the Labour Party over some seriously ill-advised comments about Hitler and Zionism.

Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/legitimate-criticism-of-israel-is-not-anti-semitism#page1

[aranthus]

1. Some of this I agree with

Criticizing Netanyahu is in no way anti-Zionist, let alone antisemitic. And if the author accurately quotes a writer in the Jerusalem Post (he doesn't give a citation), then that writer is ludicrous.

Here is where he steps wrong. He claims that all anti-Zionism is a political position, and that simply isn't true. Political and Religious anti-Zionists believe very different things for very different reasons.

First, the belief of Religious anti-Zionists can be summarized as, "The Jews are not entitled to a state in Israel, yet. Sometime in the future for sure, but not right now." The belief of political anti-Zionists is, "The Jews are not entitled to a state in Israel at all. Not now, not ever, never." Religious anti-Zionists accept that Jews are a people who have a legitimate claim to the land. Political anti-Zionists don't.

Second, the belief of Religious ant-Zionists is not political. It is obviously religious. They believe that for Jews to create a state of Israel is a usurpation of God's authority. Political anti-Zionism is premised on the denial of Jewish national rights. That's why all political anti-Zionism is per se antisemitic; it's hostile to Jews at its core. It's also why the existence of religious anti-Zionism does not legitimize political anti-Zionism. They are two very different sets of ideas.

[aranthus]

2. For the record

Here is the cite to the JP opinion piece that the original post was talking about. It is by Benjamin Kerstein in the May 20, 2012 Jerusalem Post.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Yes-all-criticism-of-Israel-is-anti-Semitic

[Little Tich]

7. I believe that Israel doesn't have the right to exist as a Jewish state,

but I also believe that Israel has a right to exist as democratic state.

I want Israel to have the same kind of recognition of equal democratic rights for all its citizens like the US has.

Does this mean that my criticism of Israel could be defined as legitimate? Am I a political anti-Zionist?

[Little Tich]

9. I believe that no ethnic group should be allowed to create a state and discriminate against other

ethnic groups.

I want Israel to be like France, Britain or the US. Israel is an ethnocracy that has put ethnic discrimination into law. This doesn't mean that Israel is worse than all other countries, but it's a bottom rung democracy, and I really want things to become more democratic in Israel.

In a way, I think that we're arguing past each other, because my concern isn't about Jews or Judaism, it's about universal democratic rights.

[Little Tich]

12. Frankly, I think that liberal democracy is the only viable form of government.

I also believe that the liberal democracy is the best way to protect the rights of ethnic groups, regardless whether it's a majority group or a minority. Anti-Semitism is a form of racism, no more, no less, and the best way to combat it is to create a good and democratic society that doesn't foster hate.

I think your siege mentality is misplaced. White South Africans were afraid that giving equal rights to the black South Africans would lead to a race war too, but it never happened.

[shira]

14. Really? So what is your side doing to promote Palestinian liberal democratic values?

Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 06:25 PM - Edit history (3)

Nothing, right?

I never see the BDS crowd ever calling Palestinian leaders out for their extremely regressive rightwing politics.

I never see you doing that, so I can only assume you support a regressive Palestinian society, not liberal democratic values.

But let's go with your view:
Palestinian leaders treat women, homosexuals, children, & christians like dog shit so why do you think they'd treat the hated Jews better when Jews become a minority in your Utopian vision?

See the problem with your view? You bitch & moan about Israel but your solution is 1000x worse, not just for Jews but for everyone involved.

Once your BDS buddies decide that liberal democratic values are really important & you do something about that - like call out regressive Palestinian leadership for their fascism - let us know. Until then, you're all smoke and mirrors.

[Little Tich]

25. You're really barking up the wrong tree. n/t

[shira]

33. Not at all. If you truly want a liberal democratic 1-state solution, prove it...

All I see from you and yours is deflection when it comes to Hamas' regressive fascist rightwing rule.

Prove to us there is Palestinian leadership that genuinely advocates for liberal democratic values so that Israelis can then see that your 1-state solution has a chance of working. The argument is that with a Jewish minority, that area will be nothing close to a liberal democracy and something on the order of hell holes in Lebanon, Jordan, or Syria. My proof is that you cannot name one liberal/progressive Palestinian leader, nor do you care that they do not exist.

If you care so much for liberal democracy, back it up or you're just blowing smoke.

[Little Tich]

41. Wrong tree.

[King_David]

20. Without a state and strong Jewish army

ALL Jews will be wiped out ... So quickly.

[shira]

34. It's this indifference to the safety of Jews worldwide that's telling...

The BDS antizionists never acknowledge that Jews have legitimate security concerns both in Europe and within Israel.

They prefer to pretend it's the Jews oppressing others that's the problem.

That's pure antisemitism, similar to accusing gays of oppressing others for no reason while having no security concerns of their own. Like saying gays cannot be victims since they're oppressors. Same with Jews.

It's evil.

[shira]

15. Israel already guarantees equal rights for all its citizens despite the fiction you're selling. n/t

[shira]

13. Read this OP and comment on it please...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134127992

In particular this part...

The point is this: we no longer have to plead—to the left or the right or the Islamists or the nativists or to anyone else. If Britain—or Belgium or France or Sweden for that matter—wants to hound its Jews, that’s too bad, and it would leave these countries Judenrein and scrubbed of any claim on the heritage of the Enlightenment. But try to really mess with Jews, and you’ll learn the real lesson of Zionism’s triumph: we can defend ourselves now, and, if needed, will do so with great and glorious fury.

You would take that away from Jews, making us all dependent once again on the countries hosting us.

That hasn't turned out well historically, for thousands of years.

But that's what you're advocating & it's very bad for Jews who you seem to forget also have human rights. The right to live, prosper, and be protected.

Conditions for Jews are only getting worse throughout Europe, including Scandinavian countries (that's you BTW). I find it amusing that people in countries where Jews are being attacked believe they know what's best for Jews - and that the situation before 1948 when Jews had no home or defense is what's best.

That takes a helluva lot of chutzpah, you know?

[FBaggins]

3. Of course it isn't

At the same time, that simple fact cannot be used as a fig leaf for actual anti-Semites to falsely claim that all they're doing is presenting legitimate criticism.

The author's description of Ken Livingstone's comments as merely "ill advised" demonstrate that he isn't capable of distinguishing anti-Semitism from "legitimate criticism of Israel".

[shira]

5. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is pure antisemitism.

End of discussion.

[FBaggins]

6. The quote that really gets me:

"I’ve never heard anybody say anything antisemitism-Semitic but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this."

Seriously? He's put up with the topic for 35 years and he's never heard anyone say anything anti-semitic?

Or:

a real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbours in Golders Green or Stoke Newington

Got it. Even hating the Jews in Israel doesn't count (note... not talking policy here)... unless you hate ALL of the Jews.

Heck... some of his best friends are Jews, right?

[shira]

52. It's an irrational hatred so the lie that he's never once heard anyone say anything antisemitic....

....when bashing Israel is to be expected. Same as the next quote about having to hate all Jews in order to be considered a Jew hater.

This hatred rots the brain. Jew hatred makes people dumb.

That, and the enormous pressure not to EVER be critical of anything the anti-zionist Left wants you to believe, or else be branded a rightwing Islamophobe, tossed off the Leftist reservation & thrown under the bus.

[shira]

4. Typical anti-Zionist trash. The OP writer is part of the problem...

....as he fails to acknowledge anywhere in his article that Labour has a serious antisemitism problem which goes far beyond mere criticism.

He disingenuously brings up Netanyahu as if those accused of antisemitism are being attacked for just being critical of Bibi. No one who is taken seriously argues that. Criticizing Netanyahu as he described is of course legitimate. But that's not what anti-Zionists are doing and the writer damned well knows that.

Accusing Israel of being a Nazi state or deliberately targeting Gazan civilians in 2014 (which the writer did in the OP) is not mere criticism. It's slanderous hate speech intended to provoke and incite against Jews & Israel.

The writer mentions rising antisemitism in Europe but doesn't make a connection between it and anti-Israel hate incitement. As if the two things aren't connected at all...

At best, the OP will convince simple-minded people ignorant of I/P. But that's the author's intent, I believe.

===================================

Alan Johnson makes quite clear the difference between criticism of Israel and antisemitism (starting around 1:08).

https://amp.twimg.com/v/679463f5-d750-4c9a-a897-edb57ce03c1c

[Little Tich]

10. I put up the OP because it reflects my own beliefs on anti-Semitism to a great degree.

I think the debate about what's legitimate criticism of Israel and what's anti-Semitism is important. I'm opposed to anti-Semitism and I think it's wrong to justify discrimination of one ethnic group in the pursuit of rights for another, which I believe is Labour's problem in a nutshell. Labour should kick out the trash - up to 20 members have already been suspended, (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.717539) but I'm sure there will be more. I agree with you that Labour has a problem, but I think it can be fixed.

I think the current situation in Israel warrants criticism, and a lot of it too. Israel's democratic character is diminishing, and it seems as things are only getting worse. Hopefully, Israel can turn things around, but it won't happen on its own.

Anyway, I disagree with you on a few points. I don't think that accusing Israel of being a Nazi state is necessarily anti-Semitic, but it can be. Sometimes the Nazi comparison can be legit, like here:

Haaretz: IDF Deputy Chief Likens 'Revolting Trends' in Israeli Society to pre-Holocaust Germany

'On Holocaust Remembrance Day, we ought to discuss our ability to uproot the seeds of intolerance, violence, self-destruction and moral deterioration,' says Maj. Gen. Yair Golan.

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.717948

Also, accusing Israel of targeting civilians isn't slanderous hate speech if it's based on facts:

Israeli forces displayed ‘callous indifference’ in deadly attacks on family homes in Gaza
Source: Amnesty International, 5 November 2014

Israeli forces have killed scores of Palestinian civilians in attacks targeting houses full of families which in some cases have amounted to war crimes, Amnesty International has disclosed in a new report on the latest Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip

.
Read more: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/israeli-forces-displayed-callous-indifference-deadly-attacks-family-homes-gaza/

For reasons unknown, I couldn't access your clip, which is unfortunate, because Alan johnson seems to be fairly intelligent. I found a transcript of him responding to Normal Finkelstein here: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/131475/how-alan-johnson-responded-norman-finkelstein-kings-college-israel-debate

I don't think that Ken Livingstone's remarks were anti-Semitic, simply because he seems to be unable to grasp the significance of bringing up historical events in a current political discussion. I wouldn't do it, regardless of whether the events actually occured or not. But bad judgement isn't anti-Semitism.

[shira]

16. Yes, you believe you know better what antisemitism & zionism is than Jews.

And that's a complete joke. It's unreal that you don't see how ridiculous it is to believe you know better than Jews what Jew hatred looks like.

I really want to you to see Alan Johnson's latest. Here's a twitter link...
https://twitter.com/MarkyLott/status/728191557418012672

And here's Alan Johnson in a longer article....
http://fathomjournal.org/the-left-and-the-jews-time-for-a-rethink/

[Little Tich]

19. Ah, so Alan Johnson was just another pro-Israel shill after all...

It's amazing that a person who characterizes himself to be to the left can give a long speech without revealing any left-wing POW and also talk about criticism about Israel without mentioning even once what the motivation for this criticism could be. It's only about "antisemitic anti-Zionism", and according to Alan Johnson, that's the only form of criticism of Israel coming from the left.

When reading this obvious attempt to create a straw man, my eyes went: eyes: .

BTW, letting people and groups decide themselves what counts as discrimination is a really bad idea. It's led to women being denied healthcare (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/catholic-hospitals-are-still-denying-women-pregnancy-related-care-for-moral-reasons), gay couples not being allowed to order a wedding cake (http://christiannews.net/2016/04/28/oregon-bakers-ordered-to-pay-135000-for-declining-gay-wedding-file-argument-in-appeals-court/) and gay couples being denied a marriage licence. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/defiant-kentucky-clerk-could-be-found-in-contempt-thursday/2015/09/03/34e50f08-51af-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html)

[shira]

22. See, it's hard to argue Alan Johnson is wrong when he distinguishes....

...between legit criticism and Jew hating demonisation.

Antisemitic anti-Zionism bends the meaning of Israel and Zionism out of shape until both become fit receptacles for the tropes, images and ideas of classical antisemitism. In short, that which the demonological Jew once was, demonological Israel now is: uniquely malevolent, full of blood lust, all-controlling, the hidden hand, tricksy, always acting in bad faith, the obstacle to a better, purer, more spiritual world, uniquely deserving of punishment, and so on.

Antisemitic anti-Zionism has three components: a programme, a discourse, and a movement.

First, antisemitic anti-Zionism has a political programme: not two states for two peoples, but the abolition of the Jewish homeland; not Palestine alongside Israel, but Palestine instead of Israel.

Second, antisemitic anti-Zionism is a demonising intellectual discourse (as I outline in my chapter in Gabe Brahm’s and Cary Nelson’s book, The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel). The Left is imprisoning itself within a distorting system of concepts: ‘Zionism is racism’; Israel is a ‘settler-colonialist state’ which ‘ethnically cleansed’ the ‘indigenous’ people, went on to build an ‘apartheid state’ and is now engaged in an ‘incremental genocide’ against the Palestinians.

And there is the ugly phenomenon of Holocaust Inversion – the deliberate and systematic Nazification of Israel in street placards depicting Netanyahu as Hitler, in posters equating the IDF and the SS, in cartoons portraying Israelis as Nazis, and even in the language of intellectuals.

Third, antisemitic anti-Zionism is a presence within a global social movement (the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS movement) to exclude one state – and only one state – from the economic, cultural and educational life of humanity: the little Jewish one.

You've seen dozens of examples here of antisemitic BDS Israel bashing.

Your silence WRT those vile acts speaks volumes.

First step for you is to acknowledge there's a problem, not pretend it's all made up.

[Little Tich]

27. I've realized that Alan Johnson never mentions what he believes constitutes legitimate criticism of

Israel.

It's possible that he believes that there is no legitimate criticism of Israel. One would think that a leftie like him would have some problems with a right-wing government like Netanyahu's - but no, his Likud credentials are impeccable.

I think I could find some examples of anti-Semitism in the form of criticism of Israel/Zionism, and some examples of legitimate criticism. I could probably even find examples of very harsh criticism that are not anti-Semitic, and other examples that on the surface are OK, but actually are anti-Semitic.

Would you be able to provide an example of legitimate criticism of Israel? It would help me understand the difference between legit criticism and Jew hating demonisation...

[shira]

32. In post #4, I wrote before the video that at 1:08 into it Johnson distinguishes...

....between legit and illegitimate criticism.

I'm not sure how you missed that unless you enjoy pretending supporters of Zionism find all criticism illegitimate.

So watch that again and get back to me.

[shira]

43. Did you watch the video? Still don't know the difference b/w legit criticism & demonisation? n/t

[Little Tich]

44. I seem to struggle with that particular clip, but why don't you enlighten me?

Is there an OP critical of Israel in the I/P group from the last few weeks (back to April 25 at least) that isn't classified as legitimate criticism of Israel? I took a look at the latest OPs, and there was only legitimate criticism of Israel, IMHO.

So would you agree that the OPs from the last few weeks in this group contain only legitimate criticism of Israel? I'm wondering, because I'm not sure what you and/or Alan Johnson define as legitimate criticism of Israel...

[shira]

45. I thought you saw it. Here's another link...

https://twitter.com/MarkyLott/status/728191557418012672

Starting right around 1 minute in, he mentions the occupation ending, settlements are wrong, disproportionate response in Gaza...

All that is legitimate.

From recently here, questioning the amount of US money to Israel, whether Israel should hold onto the Golan, questioning Ayelet Shaked's annexation....

None of that is demonising rhetoric that can be used to incite hatred or violence against Jews whether one agrees with the argument or not.

===============================================

Now it's your turn.

What is legitimate vs. illegitimate criticism of Hamas, the PA, etc.?

[Little Tich]

46. So there's no illegitimate criticism of Israel whatsoever on DU then?

Last edited Sat May 7, 2016, 11:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Note: I finally got watch the Alan Johnson clip. I must say I really think he's wrong in defining some criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and some not, and that it would be possible to lay it out as a Venn diagram, and there's some kind of sliding scale that makes some criticism more anti-Semitic than others. That kind of thinking is really useless, because it only deals with what anti-Semitism is supposed to look like, not what it is. The problem is that theoretically, there could be a situation with two identical statements about Israel and/or Jews, where one of them is anti-Semitic and the other not, simply because of context; one statement is made because of anti-Semitic views the other not.

However, listening to him, I realize that he's just another Tory, because he's really not mentioning that there are some in the conservative party who have negative attitudes towards Jews, and he seems to be very careful not to cross the Likud line and actually criticize Israel in any way. It's obvious that he personally sees no reason whatsoever to criticize Israel, and while he's not completely dishonest, he still tries to deflect Israel from valid criticism.

Nice try, but I'll stick to what I know:

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism directed against Jews

Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews

[shira]

47. Calling Israel a Nazi, Apartheid state or calling for the forced transfer of Israel's Jews...

....to America like Naz Shah is pre-meditated, illegitimate and antisemitic incitement. It's deliberate. When Ken Livingstone lied by saying Hitler was a Zionist before going mad, there was only one reason for doing so & it was to purposely provoke hatred against Zionists (Jews).

Malicious fabrications & slander like Israel controls foreign governments, or that Israel set out to murder children in Gaza during the 2014 war, or that Israel kills Palestinians in order to take their organs, or that Jews are thieves who have no history at the Temple Mount...all of this is deliberate antisemitic incitement meant to provoke animosity & violence against Jews.

Defending Hamas & supporting their violence against Jews knowing full well that Hamas' goals aren't just the destruction of Israel but murder of all Jews....is neo-Nazi style antisemitism.

Attacking Jews for being tricksy, by bringing all this up in bad faith in order to defend Israel policy.....is antisemitic. Bashing Israel for doing good things (gay rights, treating Palestinians from Gaza) but always attributing the worst sinister motives for them (pinkwashing) is antisemitic.

Anti-Semitism is a form of racism directed against Jews

Anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews

I agree, but the problem is you don't know what racism and antipathy towards Jews looks like since you defend all the above as mere criticism of Israel.

[Little Tich]

48. I think that there is a difference in how we define the motivations for the examples you mentioned.

All of these examples are possibly anti-Semitic and have the characteristics that should be noticed and investigated. However, just because something may be anti-Semitic, doesn't mean it is. As a comparison, all people who were shot and killed are possibly murdered. But it's not necessarily murder, because there are many instances where people are shot and killed without being murdered. However, every time someone gets shot and killed, it should be investigated.

I think you're too eager to jump to the conclusion that something must be anti-Semitism, when it's possible it isn't. For example, the accusation that Israel is targeting civilians is not slander, nor anti-Semitic - it's an accusation that would be leveled against any country that's killing civilians under similar circumstances. And I don't understand why it's anti-Semitic to criticize pinkwashing - no country should get away with doing things like that.

Your definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism is too inclusive.

[shira]

50. The worst critics of Israel spew out most or all of those examples constantly....

It's not just 1 or 2 in isolation, and that's how to distinguish the antisemites from those who might sometimes use 1 of those examples on occasion.

As a comparison, all people who were shot and killed are possibly murdered. But it's not necessarily murder, because there are many instances where people are shot and killed without being murdered. However, every time someone gets shot and killed, it should be investigated.

Israel haters call it murder every time w/o fail, that Israel, the IDF & Netanyahu are baby killers who target civilians due to hate & bigotry.....and that self-defense against Hamas aggression is but an excuse. Evidence to the contrary proving Israel is more careful with civilians than any other country on earth means nothing to the Jew haters who will just continue to call it murder, baby killers, etc. It's deliberate & they know it provokes more hatred & violence not just against Israel but Jews in general.

I told you before, it's the lies that give it away. Repeating the lies & slander is a dead giveaway of Jew hatred.

I think you're too eager to jump to the conclusion that something must be anti-Semitism, when it's possible it isn't. For example, the accusation that Israel is targeting civilians is not slander, nor anti-Semitic - it's an accusation that would be leveled against any country that's killing civilians under similar circumstances.

Given the proof that Israel doesn't target or murder civilians deliberately out of malice, of course it's antisemitic when the accusations are repeated.

And I don't understand why it's anti-Semitic to criticize pinkwashing - no country should get away with doing things like that.

Sorry, not understanding.

Are you saying Israel's record WRT gay rights is nothing but a show?

[Little Tich]

53. I'm going to jump this thread.

But I want to give one additional reason why I want a restrictive definition of what anti-Semitism is:

I don't want anti-Semitism to lose it's meaning as something really bad. There should never be any doubt that anti-Semitism is something really bad. If questionable things like uncertain statements and criticism of Israel are included, then some anti-Semitic expressions won't be so bad. And in the worst of possible worlds, some expressions of anti-Semitism would even be justified.

You can have the last word if you want.

[shira]

54. Wait - you didn't answer my last question. Let's see if what you're saying is legitimate....

And I don't understand why it's anti-Semitic to criticize pinkwashing - no country should get away with doing things like that.

What is Israel trying to get away with?

You think pinkwashing is legitimate, not antisemitic. Nothing to fear discussing it if that's the case, right?

[Little Tich]

56. I thought this thread was exhausted, but your question deserves an answer.

I define pinkwashing as an attempt to promote a pro-Israel POW by referring to Israel's record on LGBT rights. It's either used to deflect criticism of Israel or to criticize other countries. I've seen both forms in the I/P group. It's not even remotely anti-Semitic to criticize those who do the pinkwashing.

The thing is, reporting about Israel's supposedly good record on LGBT rights is in itself not a bad thing and it's not pinkwashing to do so. It's only when it's used as a pro-Israel argument that's not really connected to the issue that it becomes pinkwashing.

I think that any country that's trying to hide a bad record on human rights by referring to some other issue shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Most countries that are doing it are not democracies, like China and Russia, but Israel is doing it too.

Sometimes the pinkwashing can backfire, because the Israeli politicians who promote pinkwashing aren't actually promoting LGBT rights, they just want to pretend they do. Here's an example:

Day after marking LGBT rights, Knesset nixes 5 gender equality bills
Source: Times of Israel, February 24, 2016

Opposition fumes as proposals on civil unions, ban on conversion therapy shot down; coalition’s only openly gay MK skips votes

http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-after-marking-lgbt-rights-knesset-nixes-5-gender-equality-bills/

[shira]

57. Where have you ever seen Israel's record on gay rights used to deflect criticism?

Because if that's the purpose of pinkwashing, it hasn't worked at all.

Agreed?

Do you believe that when Israel sends relief and aid to Haiti or Nepal, that it's trying to deflect criticism? It's called "rubble washing". If so, what's the proof they're trying to deflect - and then tell me how effective that's been.

Israel also helps Syrians and Gazans injured in war/battle. Why? To deflect criticism? Because if so, how's that working?

See, the thing is antisemites will take anything Israel does that's good and try to twist it into something nefarious & conspiratorial & you're falling right into that trap along with all the fascist, extreme Islamists & rightwingers & you either can't see that or don't care.

I want to see you at least acknowledge that - that Jew haters will take Israel's good deeds and try to warp them and that's what the stupid charge of pinkwashing is. BTW, the pinkwashing accusers claim Israel only has a good record on gay rights because they're faking their concern for gays. Same for rubble-washing or helping Syrians/Gazans. All fake. So your idea of pinkwashing isn't what the accusation really is. That accusation is far worse than what you think it is.

Now please acknowledge how stupid and hateful the pink-washing accusation is. Can you do it?

[shira]

58. You're exhausted because u don't want to distinguish b/w legit criticism & Jew hate?

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 11:42 AM - Edit history (2)

There are many, many different examples that could be discussed.

What do you fear?

For example, I think your goal of 1-state is for all intents and purposes the same as that of Hamas. In no way, would that one state be more liberal/progressive than Israel currently.....with a Jewish minority and a radical Palestinian political party in charge. You were shown proof of that with Knesset MP's from the Joint List being quoted with their regressive, rightwing views.

That said, wouldn't you agree that a Hamas version of 1-state is antisemitic given that you admitted Hamas is an antisemitic organization?

Hold that thought and consider that most Israelis and Palestinians are against 1 secular democratic state.

[shira]

17. As to the Nazi comparison, that's Holocaust Inversion....a form of Holocaust Denial

One of the cruelest aspects of the new antisemitism is its perverse use of the Holocaust as a stick to beat ‘the Jews.’ Lesley Klaff explains the phenomenon of ‘Holocaust Inversion.’

...What has been called ‘Holocaust Inversion’ involves an inversion of reality (the Israelis are cast as the ‘new’ Nazis and the Palestinians as the ‘new’ Jews), and an inversion of morality (the Holocaust is presented as a moral lesson for, or even a moral indictment of ‘the Jews’). More: those who object to these inversions are told – as they were by David Ward – that they are acting in bad faith, only being concerned to deflect criticism of Israel. In short, the Holocaust, an event accurately described by Dan Diner as a ‘rupture in civilisation,’ organised by a regime that, as the political philosopher Leo Strauss observed, ‘had no other clear principle except murderous hatred of the Jews,’ is now being used, instrumentally, as a means to express animosity towards the homeland of the Jews. ‘The victims have become perpetrators’ is being heard more and more. That is Holocaust Inversion.

...The historian Deborah Lipstadt – author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory and successful defendant in the libel suit brought against her and Penguin Books by the Holocaust denier David Irving – has used the term ‘soft-core denial’ to highlight the damage done by Holocaust inversion. The false equivalencing of Israel and the Nazis, she says, ‘elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did.’ And as Anthony Julius points out, the Zionist=Nazi trope not only says to the world that the ‘Zionists are to the Palestinians what Nazis were to the Jews’, but also that ‘the “Zionists” and Nazis share the same Fascist ideology’ and that ‘the “Zionists” were complicit with the Nazis in the Holocaust.’

The ‘anti-Zionist’ writers, Hazem Saghiyah and Saleh Bashir published an article in 1998,Universalizing the Holocaust, which makes clear the moral inversion involved in the Holocaust Inversion. ‘The dissociation between the acknowledgment of the Holocaust and what Israel is doing should be the starting point for the development of a discourse which says that the Holocaust does not free the Jewish state or the Jews of accountability. On the contrary, the Nazi crime compounds their moral responsibility and exposes them to greater answerability. They are the ones who have escaped the ugliest crime in history, and now they are perpetrating reprehensible deeds against another people.’

Holocaust Inversion, then, involves the abuse of the Holocaust memory to issue a moral stricture aimed at Israel and ‘the Jews’, imposing upon them a uniquely onerous moral responsibility and accountability in their treatment of others.

THE ACCUSATION OF ‘BAD FAITH’

Criticised for his Holocaust Memorial Day comments, David Ward hit back by accusing his critics of bad faith: ‘There is a huge operation out there, a machine almost, which is designed to protect the State of Israel from criticism. And that comes into play very, very quickly and focuses intensely on anyone who’s seen to criticise the State of Israel. And so I end up looking at what happened to me, whether I should use this word, whether I should use that word – and that is winning for them.’

This is an example of ‘The Livingstone Formulation’, a term coined by David Hirsh to refer to the practice of responding to claims of contemporary antisemitism by alleging that those making the claim are only doing so to prevent Israel from being criticised; in other words, they are ‘playing the antisemitism card.’ Ward’s statement is a perfect illustration of the Livingstone Formulation because while Ward claims that an ad hominem attack is being made on him by a ‘huge operation out there, a machine almost,’ it is, in fact, he who is making an ad hominem attack on those who question him. Rather than a ‘huge operation’ deflecting criticism of Israel, it is actually Ward who is deflecting legitimate concerns about antisemitism in the form of the Holocaust inversion.

By inverting reality and morality, and by recklessly spreading accusations of bad faith, Holocaust Inversion prevents us identifying the changing nature of contemporary antisemitism and is an obstacle to marshalling active resistance to it.

http://fathomjournal.org/holocaust-inversion-and-contemporary-antisemitism/

[Little Tich]

21. "Holocaust Inversion" - that's a real fancy name for a limited instance of a very common mistake in

in reasoning...

The thing is, that I can't really define his statement as unequivocally anti-Semitic, as this kind of flawed reasoning is very common under other circumstances not connected to Jews. Politicians and other people too, often use historical events to motivate current policies towards people who weren't involved in those historical events. It amounts to flawed reasoning to transpose the circumstances of a historical event to a current situation, and it's also a common way to motivate prejudice.

Netanyahu said something very similar about the Mufti and Hitler, implying that the Palestinians were the "real" Nazis, but I would hardly define that as "Holocaust Inversion". I'm more interested in the fact that both Livingstone and Netanyahu both are unable to separate the historical event from a political argument. They're really completely unable to do it.

So for me, it's not necessary to use a cumbersome mechanism with a fancy name to explain a relatively common flaw in reasoning.

It's also quite possible that Livingstone is an actual anti-Semite - he's made some other bizarre statements, but until that's proven, accusations of "Holocaust Inversion" are premature.

[shira]

23. You're giving Holocaust minimizers (deniers) a free pass to bash Jews.

Once again we see that you don't engage with what's being argued (Holocaust Inversion). You just repeat that you see nothing wrong in it, showing a willful blindness.

There's only one reason Israel is compared to Nazi Germany and it's because it's the Jewish state. No other nation on the planet is compared to Nazi Germany because they're not Jewish states. Only the Jewish state is the Nazi state & that's vile.

It's pure antisemitism.

But anything goes according to you when bashing Israel. There's really nothing beyond the pale anyone could say when attacking Israel and its Jews that you would consider hateful. For you to admit there's a Jew hating problem when it comes to bashing Israel would be a real accomplishment. I don't see that happening, however.

[Little Tich]

24. I'm not giving Livingstone a free pass - it's just that I can't go from his statement being possibly

anti-Semitic to must be anti-Semitic without proof.

I just can't do it.

[FBaggins]

26. Then perhaps you're more alike then you realize

He can't remember ever hearing anyone say anything anti-Semitic either.


Just for clarification... what would "proof" look like?

And do you agree with him that the creation of the state of Israel was fundamentally wrong?

[Little Tich]

28. It would of course clinch it if Livingstone would make comments that revealed that he really doesn't

like Jews.

He seems to be pretty keen on connecting Zionism with Hitler, so it's possible he's got more to say on that subject which reveals more than he would like.

I think it's not possible to characterize Israel's creation as right or wrong. It's a historical event that led to other historical events, and it's not possible to just roll it back. There are of course several perspectives - Israel's creation led to forced migrations all over the Middle-East, but on the other hand, a democracy was created which led to better circumstances for some. I'm not prepared to single out the creation of Israel as being better or worse than other events in the post-war era.

Most historical events are not either right or wrong. In fact, very few historical events have only negative or positive consequences.

[FBaggins]

29. You must no have read the entire interview

He says that he isn't a "real anti-Semite" because he doesn't hate ALL Jews, just the ones in Israel.

You agree?

a democracy was created which led to better circumstances for some.

Have you compared the "some" that are Palestinians in Israel/West Bank to those in other parts of the M.E.?

[Little Tich]

30. Source, please. n/t

[FBaggins]

31. “A real antisemite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel”: Ken Livingstone’s extraordinary definition

But his definition of antisemitism was the most telling remark:

“Blurring these two things [criticising Israel and being antisemitic] undermines the real importance of antisemitism, because a real antisemite doesn't just hate the Jews in Israel, they hate their Jewish neighbour in Golders Green or in Stoke Newington. It's a physical loathing.”

It is the use of the word “just” – as if hating Israeli Jews is excusable, or at least unimportant – that has outraged viewers. As some Labour activists have pointed out, when they protest against the Israeli government, it is about the treatment of Palestinians – not about attacking the Jews in Israel.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/04/real-antisemite-doesn-t-just-hate-jews-israel-ken-livingstone-s

Of course... today I learned that he has his own version of "some of my best friends are black". He can't be anti-Semitic because he once slept with a couple of them.

[shira]

35. I'm not sure our friend agrees with what classical antisemitism....

....looked like the past 1000 years. Maybe he/she doesn't care.

Unless Nazis are successfully murdering Jews, anything goes it seems.

Then again, our friend believes that Jew hating Hamas maniac terrorists who murder Jews are victims of occupation so they're not antisemites either.

So no one's an antisemite.

[shira]

38. Crickets. They won't admit there's a problem, ever. n/t

[Little Tich]

40. Yet another bizarre statement made by a former Mayor of London.

But I'm not convinced that it reveals that he's an anti-Semite, sorry.

[shira]

51. It's all his bizarre statements & lies that prove w/o question he's a Jew hater. n/t

[shira]

36. You didn't answer what proof of being an antisemite would look like.

For once I would like for you to write down what proof of being racist against Blacks, Muslims, or Arabs would look like.

Then apply that to Jews.

Can you do that?

[Little Tich]

39. It's actually simple - the proof must prove that a person is an anti-Semite.

For me, anti-Semitism is antipathy towards Jews or alternatively racism against Jews. Proof that a person harbors these sentiments means that a person is an anti-Semite.

The problem is that people express all kinds of things for a variety of reasons, and it's not easy to exactly pinpoint the motivations behind a person's statements. I usually try figure out if the person making a potentially anti-Semitic statement could possibly have another motivation for making it. If there's no other possible explanation, the person is displaying an anti-Semitic attitude and is therefore an anti-Semite.

A good example of this is what Helen Thomas said about Jews in Israel "Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."" (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-press-icon-helen-thomas-89-apologizes-jews-palestine-article-1.182117) On the surface, it's just a very angry woman talking back to an idiot "reporter" who's really just trying to annoy people, but actually it's much worse. The only possible explanation for what she said is that she harbors feelings of antipathy towards Jews. There's no alternative explanation. If she she expresses her opinions about a group of people who live and were born in a certain place, and she wants them to leave just because of their ethnicity, that's definitely antipathy towards that group. Helen Thomas was an anti-Semite.

When it comes to other groups like Blacks, Muslims and Arabs, if a statement would be racist against them, it would probably be anti-Semitic too, if it was directed at Jews. I will not provide any example whatsoever, but if you want to post what you consider racism against these groups, be my guest.

[shira]

42. How about lies that incite hatred & violence? Is that proof? n/t

[FBaggins]

18. Sigh

Also, accusing Israel of targeting civilians isn't slanderous hate speech if it's based on facts:

And if that ever happens... we can discuss it.

Unfortunately for that ridiculous position, Israel goes much farther to avoid injuring civilians than even the US does. Right now, accusing Israel of targeting civilians would just be a lie.

Of course... many Hamas defenders see just about everyone as a civilian, even when they're in the process of carrying out terrorist attacks.

[shira]

37. Legitimate criticism of the PLO & Hamas is considered racist by Israel haters....

....and is therefore basically forbidden.

Takes a lot of chutzpah for them to accuse their opponents of what they themselves are guilty of doing.

[shira]

55. Chilling but typical silence from the Israel hating Left. No time for reflection....

It's all legitimate criticism, anything goes, and Zionists are just trying to silence critics.

Nothing to see with Corbyn, Labour...

And they wonder why they're considered Jew haters.